Average teacher salary VS median income by state

[WorldWatcher]

Indeed, the quote I posted refered to some states: All I know are TX, CA, PA, but there may be more.

But, my point was, that the broad statement that every teacher has 4-6 years training in their "profession" has many exceptions. However, you have supported the arguement that teachers salaries are NOT too low: "We get people all the time (especially with the downturn of the economy) that think they can walk in to HR and we will hire them as a teacher."

My post wasn't made to counter the level of teacher pay. It was simply to expound upon the concept of "emergency" teachers and to point out, at least in Virginia, we have to turn away people because they don't meet the requirements to be placed in the classroom. It wouldn't make a difference if we were paying teachers $10,000 a year or $100,000 a year - if you don't have the professional training in the area you are looking to teaching, you don't go in the classroom. At least in divisions around here.


>>>>

 

[code1211]

Free By 50: Teacher Pay vs Median Incomes by State

What made me start this thread was because on the news, after Gov. Christie talked about New Jersey, they reported that New Jersey had 212 thousand millionaires state wide and 102 thousand teachers.

The average teacher's salary in New Jersey is $58,156.00 while the median state income is $64,070.00. That means teachers make 91% of the median state income.

Here is a list of "starting salaries" by state:

Teacher Salaries By State | Average Salaries For Teachers | Beginning Salaries For Teachers | Teacher Raises | TeacherPortal.com

Starting salary in Wisconsin is a measly $25,000. I had no idea it was that low. 25 grand.

When right wingers point out a teaching job that pays $100,000, it's because they have a Masters and have been teaching for 20 years or they live in an area where the standard of living is that high.

Right wingers chasing teachers out of their areas might have a "silver lining". Liberals areas will have the pick of the best. The best jobs will go to liberals and right wingers can fight with illegal immigrants over who gets to pick the biggest apples and the plumpest strawberries.

I would assume that the point that you are trying to make is that teachers salaries are grossly low compared to the states averages.

If this is your thesis, then, as usual, this Liberal talking point can be supported only by lying about the comparisson.

Your study is comparing the salry of 1 teacher to income of a household. The 15% greater income in each household represents the incomes in most cases of at least two people compared to the income of one teacher.

Why not compare apples to apples in an honest way rather than a deliberately disingenuous deception?

Teacher Pay vs Median Incomes by State | Free By 50

<snip>

[edit March 7, 2011 : This is not an apples to apples comparison. I want to point out that I am using the mean teacher salary versus the median household income.

<snip>

 

[KissMy]

If government employees were underpaid then there would not be such a huge demand for cushy government jobs.

WSJ: We've Become a Nation of Takers, Not Makers

If you want to understand better why so many states—from New York to Wisconsin to California—are teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, consider this depressing statistic: Today in America there are nearly twice as many people working for the government (22.5 million) than in all of manufacturing (11.5 million). This is an almost exact reversal of the situation in 1960, when there were 15 million workers in manufacturing and 8.7 million collecting a paycheck from the government.

It gets worse. More Americans work for the government than work in construction, farming, fishing, forestry, manufacturing, mining and utilities combined. We have moved decisively from a nation of makers to a nation of takers. Nearly half of the $2.2 trillion cost of state and local governments is the $1 trillion-a-year tab for pay and benefits of state and local employees. Is it any wonder that so many states and cities cannot pay their bills?...

Don't expect a reversal of this trend anytime soon. "Surveys of college graduates are finding that more and more of our top minds want to work for the government"...

The employment trends described here are explained in part by hugely beneficial productivity improvements in such traditional industries as farming, manufacturing, financial services and telecommunications. These produce far more output per worker than in the past. The typical farmer, for example, is today at least three times more productive than in 1950.

Where are the productivity gains in government? Consider a core function of state and local governments: schools. Over the period 1970-2005, school spending per pupil, adjusted for inflation, doubled, while standardized achievement test scores were flat. Over roughly that same time period, public-school employment doubled per student, according to a study by researchers at the University of Washington. That is what economists call negative productivity.

But education is an industry where we measure performance backwards: We gauge school performance not by outputs, but by inputs. If quality falls, we say we didn't pay teachers enough or we need smaller class sizes or newer schools. If education had undergone the same productivity revolution that manufacturing has, we would have half as many educators, smaller school budgets, and higher graduation rates and test scores.

The same is true of almost all other government services. Mass transit spends more and more every year and yet a much smaller share of Americans use trains and buses today than in past decades. One way that private companies spur productivity is by firing underperforming employees and rewarding excellence. In government employment, tenure for teachers and near lifetime employment for other civil servants shields workers from this basic system of reward and punishment. It is a system that breeds mediocrity, which is what we've gotten.

Most reasonable steps to restrain public-sector employment costs are smothered by the unions. Study after study has shown that states and cities could shave 20% to 40% off the cost of many services—fire fighting, public transportation, garbage collection, administrative functions, even prison operations—through competitive contracting to private providers. But unions have blocked many of those efforts. Public employees maintain that they are underpaid relative to equally qualified private-sector workers, yet they are deathly afraid of competitive bidding for government services.

 

[Samson]

Indeed, the quote I posted refered to some states: All I know are TX, CA, PA, but there may be more.

But, my point was, that the broad statement that every teacher has 4-6 years training in their "profession" has many exceptions. However, you have supported the arguement that teachers salaries are NOT too low: "We get people all the time (especially with the downturn of the economy) that think they can walk in to HR and we will hire them as a teacher."

My post wasn't made to counter the level of teacher pay. It was simply to expound upon the concept of "emergency" teachers and to point out, at least in Virginia, we have to turn away people because they don't meet the requirements to be placed in the classroom. It wouldn't make a difference if we were paying teachers $10,000 a year or $100,000 a year - if you don't have the professional training in the area you are looking to teaching, you don't go in the classroom. At least in divisions around here.


>>>>

No, it WOULD, and DOES make a difference if you were paying $10,000/yr or $100,000/yr.

The fact that you get applicants demonstrates that someone wants the pay. You would get fewer applicants at $10k/yr. You would get more applicants at $100k/yr, regardless of their qualification. The fact you get applicants at whatever starting salary your offering, demonstrates some level of competitiveness (I would guess that many have 4 year degress).

The fact that VA will not let a Rocket Scientist teach 8th grade science for $40,000/yr, and therefore has a shortage of teachers, doesn't mean they pay teachers too little to attract qualified "professionals."

It demonstrates, unsurprisingly, that academians value themselves much more highly based on their academic acheivements, rather than practical knowledge, than any other "professional."

 

[WorldWatcher]

Indeed, the quote I posted refered to some states: All I know are TX, CA, PA, but there may be more.

But, my point was, that the broad statement that every teacher has 4-6 years training in their "profession" has many exceptions. However, you have supported the arguement that teachers salaries are NOT too low: "We get people all the time (especially with the downturn of the economy) that think they can walk in to HR and we will hire them as a teacher."

My post wasn't made to counter the level of teacher pay. It was simply to expound upon the concept of "emergency" teachers and to point out, at least in Virginia, we have to turn away people because they don't meet the requirements to be placed in the classroom. It wouldn't make a difference if we were paying teachers $10,000 a year or $100,000 a year - if you don't have the professional training in the area you are looking to teaching, you don't go in the classroom. At least in divisions around here.


>>>>

No, it WOULD, and DOES make a difference if you were paying $10,000/yr or $100,000/yr.

The fact that you get applicants demonstrates that someone wants the pay. You would get fewer applicants at $10k/yr. You would get more applicants at $100k/yr, regardless of their qualification. The fact you get applicants at whatever starting salary your offering, demonstrates some level of competitiveness (I would guess that many have 4 year degress).

The number of applicants isn't the issue. Supply and demand is based on the number of qualified applicants. Doesn't matter of we have 100 applicants for a single teaching position if none of them can be hired. When qualification requirements are set by state law, the the supply and demand equation is based on qualified candidates.

While having a Bachelor's is a minimum requirement for the job, having a 4-year degree does not mean you are qualified for the job. As I pointed out earlier.

We pay bus attendants to ride along on transportation runs, mostly to provide assistance services to disabled students. They make about $10,000 a year for close to minimum wage. They could apply to be teachers also, but we couldn't hire them either, but they can apply.

See it's not just about who we hire today, it's also about making the career attractive long term. If the profession is not attractive, with the likelihood of attracting high school students into the college prep programs, without those then there are less people that can be hired under state law, resulting in a smaller pool of applicants, that results in schools competing for a more limited pool. Supply goes down, with a constant demand - then school systems raise salaries.


BTW - Again, I've not said teachers are underpaid.

The fact that VA will not let a Rocket Scientist teach 8th grade science for $40,000/yr, and therefore has a shortage of teachers, doesn't mean they pay teachers too little to attract qualified "professionals."

Where did you get the idea that I said VA would not allow a Rocket Scientist to teach 8th Grade Science?

Depending on a transcript review, and a determination that the Rocket Scientist would be good in the classroom of course, we'd hire a Rocket Scientist in a heartbeat. As I previously said about Engineers, they typically have met the core subject requirements (in this case science) as part of their previous college experience to qualify for a provisional license which would be good for 3-years. During that time they would have certain college classes and testing requirements to meet.


>>>>

 

[Samson]

My post wasn't made to counter the level of teacher pay. It was simply to expound upon the concept of "emergency" teachers and to point out, at least in Virginia, we have to turn away people because they don't meet the requirements to be placed in the classroom. It wouldn't make a difference if we were paying teachers $10,000 a year or $100,000 a year - if you don't have the professional training in the area you are looking to teaching, you don't go in the classroom. At least in divisions around here.


>>>>

No, it WOULD, and DOES make a difference if you were paying $10,000/yr or $100,000/yr.

The fact that you get applicants demonstrates that someone wants the pay. You would get fewer applicants at $10k/yr. You would get more applicants at $100k/yr, regardless of their qualification. The fact you get applicants at whatever starting salary your offering, demonstrates some level of competitiveness (I would guess that many have 4 year degress).

The number of applicants isn't the issue. Supply and demand is based on the number of qualified applicants. Doesn't matter of we have 100 applicants for a single teaching position if none of them can be hired. When qualification requirements are set by state law, the the supply and demand equation is based on qualified candidates.

While having a Bachelor's is a minimum requirement for the job, having a 4-year degree does not mean you are qualified for the job. As I pointed out earlier.

We pay bus attendants to ride along on transportation runs, mostly to provide assistance services to disabled students. They make about $10,000 a year for close to minimum wage. They could apply to be teachers also, but we couldn't hire them either, but they can apply.

See it's not just about who we hire today, it's also about making the career attractive long term. If the profession is not attractive, with the likelihood of attracting high school students into the college prep programs, without those then there are less people that can be hired under state law, resulting in a smaller pool of applicants, that results in schools competing for a more limited pool. Supply goes down, with a constant demand - then school systems raise salaries.


BTW - Again, I've not said teachers are underpaid.

The fact that VA will not let a Rocket Scientist teach 8th grade science for $40,000/yr, and therefore has a shortage of teachers, doesn't mean they pay teachers too little to attract qualified "professionals."

Where did you get the idea that I said VA would not allow a Rocket Scientist to teach 8th Grade Science?

Depending on a transcript review, and a determination that the Rocket Scientist would be good in the classroom of course, we'd hire a Rocket Scientist in a heartbeat. As I previously said about Engineers, they typically have met the core subject requirements (in this case science) as part of their previous college experience to qualify for a provisional license which would be good for 3-years. During that time they would have certain college classes and testing requirements to meet.


>>>>

"Depending on a transcript review, and a determination that the Rocket Scientist would be good in the classroom of course, we'd hire a Rocket Scientist in a heartbeat."



Could you be a little more duplicious?

Also, if engineers are applying to be teachers, then teachers are not underpaid.

Engineers are.

As far as your comment: "it's not just about who we hire today, it's also about making the career attractive long term," what exactly is "it."

Is it pay? Certainly not. Because teachers' pay raises typically become a smaller percentage the longer they remain in teaching. Whatever "it" is, there is nothing that makes teaching an attractive long term career except external factors for which HR has absolutely no control.

 

[asterism]

Indeed, the quote I posted refered to some states: All I know are TX, CA, PA, but there may be more.

But, my point was, that the broad statement that every teacher has 4-6 years training in their "profession" has many exceptions. However, you have supported the arguement that teachers salaries are NOT too low: "We get people all the time (especially with the downturn of the economy) that think they can walk in to HR and we will hire them as a teacher."

My post wasn't made to counter the level of teacher pay. It was simply to expound upon the concept of "emergency" teachers and to point out, at least in Virginia, we have to turn away people because they don't meet the requirements to be placed in the classroom. It wouldn't make a difference if we were paying teachers $10,000 a year or $100,000 a year - if you don't have the professional training in the area you are looking to teaching, you don't go in the classroom. At least in divisions around here.


>>>>

No, it WOULD, and DOES make a difference if you were paying $10,000/yr or $100,000/yr.

The fact that you get applicants demonstrates that someone wants the pay. You would get fewer applicants at $10k/yr. You would get more applicants at $100k/yr, regardless of their qualification. The fact you get applicants at whatever starting salary your offering, demonstrates some level of competitiveness (I would guess that many have 4 year degress).

The fact that VA will not let a Rocket Scientist teach 8th grade science for $40,000/yr, and therefore has a shortage of teachers, doesn't mean they pay teachers too little to attract qualified "professionals."

It demonstrates, unsurprisingly, that academians value themselves much more highly based on their academic acheivements, rather than practical knowledge, than any other "professional."

Not even academic achievements. My niece's Trigonometry teacher never took Trigonometry. But what were they to do with the Soccer Coach? Oh he's got a degree in Education, so I guess that means he can teach - something. He can't teach Trig. Dude barely remembers Geometry.

 

[asterism]

My post wasn't made to counter the level of teacher pay. It was simply to expound upon the concept of "emergency" teachers and to point out, at least in Virginia, we have to turn away people because they don't meet the requirements to be placed in the classroom. It wouldn't make a difference if we were paying teachers $10,000 a year or $100,000 a year - if you don't have the professional training in the area you are looking to teaching, you don't go in the classroom. At least in divisions around here.


>>>>

No, it WOULD, and DOES make a difference if you were paying $10,000/yr or $100,000/yr.

The fact that you get applicants demonstrates that someone wants the pay. You would get fewer applicants at $10k/yr. You would get more applicants at $100k/yr, regardless of their qualification. The fact you get applicants at whatever starting salary your offering, demonstrates some level of competitiveness (I would guess that many have 4 year degress).

The number of applicants isn't the issue. Supply and demand is based on the number of qualified applicants. Doesn't matter of we have 100 applicants for a single teaching position if none of them can be hired. When qualification requirements are set by state law, the the supply and demand equation is based on qualified candidates.

While having a Bachelor's is a minimum requirement for the job, having a 4-year degree does not mean you are qualified for the job. As I pointed out earlier.

We pay bus attendants to ride along on transportation runs, mostly to provide assistance services to disabled students. They make about $10,000 a year for close to minimum wage. They could apply to be teachers also, but we couldn't hire them either, but they can apply.

See it's not just about who we hire today, it's also about making the career attractive long term. If the profession is not attractive, with the likelihood of attracting high school students into the college prep programs, without those then there are less people that can be hired under state law, resulting in a smaller pool of applicants, that results in schools competing for a more limited pool. Supply goes down, with a constant demand - then school systems raise salaries.


BTW - Again, I've not said teachers are underpaid.

The fact that VA will not let a Rocket Scientist teach 8th grade science for $40,000/yr, and therefore has a shortage of teachers, doesn't mean they pay teachers too little to attract qualified "professionals."

Where did you get the idea that I said VA would not allow a Rocket Scientist to teach 8th Grade Science?

Depending on a transcript review, and a determination that the Rocket Scientist would be good in the classroom of course, we'd hire a Rocket Scientist in a heartbeat. As I previously said about Engineers, they typically have met the core subject requirements (in this case science) as part of their previous college experience to qualify for a provisional license which would be good for 3-years. During that time they would have certain college classes and testing requirements to meet.


>>>>

Teaching is a calling, not a profession. As such, professionals should be called and encouraged to contribute. Most of our town's Lawyers, Doctors, and other businesspeople would love to teach at different stages of their lives. As it turns out, the School Board has deemed almost all of them unqualified to teach the future Doctors, Lawyers, and businesspeople. Some guy with a degree in Leisure Sports Education? He's somehow the interim Math teacher that can't balance his own checkbook.

 

[editec]

I am constantly amused by the way the teacher hating fascists ignore the facts.

Their minds are made up and by GOD, don't confuse them with facts.

 

[California Girl]

I am constantly amused by the way the teacher hating fascists ignore the facts.

Their minds are made up and by GOD, don't confuse them with facts.

I am constantly amused by the misuse of the word 'hate'. Not marching lock step with liberal thinking is not 'hate'. Assuming you have left school, you really should have learned that much.

 

[WorldWatcher]

No, it WOULD, and DOES make a difference if you were paying $10,000/yr or $100,000/yr.

The fact that you get applicants demonstrates that someone wants the pay. You would get fewer applicants at $10k/yr. You would get more applicants at $100k/yr, regardless of their qualification. The fact you get applicants at whatever starting salary your offering, demonstrates some level of competitiveness (I would guess that many have 4 year degress).

The number of applicants isn't the issue. Supply and demand is based on the number of qualified applicants. Doesn't matter of we have 100 applicants for a single teaching position if none of them can be hired. When qualification requirements are set by state law, the the supply and demand equation is based on qualified candidates.

While having a Bachelor's is a minimum requirement for the job, having a 4-year degree does not mean you are qualified for the job. As I pointed out earlier.

We pay bus attendants to ride along on transportation runs, mostly to provide assistance services to disabled students. They make about $10,000 a year for close to minimum wage. They could apply to be teachers also, but we couldn't hire them either, but they can apply.

See it's not just about who we hire today, it's also about making the career attractive long term. If the profession is not attractive, with the likelihood of attracting high school students into the college prep programs, without those then there are less people that can be hired under state law, resulting in a smaller pool of applicants, that results in schools competing for a more limited pool. Supply goes down, with a constant demand - then school systems raise salaries.


BTW - Again, I've not said teachers are underpaid.

The fact that VA will not let a Rocket Scientist teach 8th grade science for $40,000/yr, and therefore has a shortage of teachers, doesn't mean they pay teachers too little to attract qualified "professionals."

Where did you get the idea that I said VA would not allow a Rocket Scientist to teach 8th Grade Science?

Depending on a transcript review, and a determination that the Rocket Scientist would be good in the classroom of course, we'd hire a Rocket Scientist in a heartbeat. As I previously said about Engineers, they typically have met the core subject requirements (in this case science) as part of their previous college experience to qualify for a provisional license which would be good for 3-years. During that time they would have certain college classes and testing requirements to meet.


>>>>

"Depending on a transcript review, and a determination that the Rocket Scientist would be good in the classroom of course, we'd hire a Rocket Scientist in a heartbeat."



Could you be a little more duplicious?

Not trying to be duplicitous at all. Background checks, degree confirmation, and personal interviews - do you not feel employers should verify information provided by someone seeking a job?

Also, if engineers are applying to be teachers, then teachers are not underpaid.

Engineers are.

Ahhhhhhhhh - I see what you up to. You are attempting to imply that because I said we could hire an Engineer (not because of the "title" Engineer, but because of their college course load) that I meant that Engineers were inundating us with applications. Not true. We have a pretty decent sized school district. Over the last 10 years we've hired, IIRC, at the low end 150 teachers over a summer, at the high end it was 255. There are about 8 districts in commuting distance and there is some turnover their if we don't stay competitive, there are always some retirees, and we live in a high military area so there is some turnover as spouses receive orders to rotate out of area.

So let's go with the low end. 10 years, 150 per year - that's about 1500 teacher hirings sine I've been working there. Over those 10-years I could probably count the number of Engineer applicants on one hand. Of the three I can remember off the top of my head, 2 abandoned their classroom mid-year supposedly to go back to engineering for more money. The one that has worked out long-term is acutally a retired researcher from NASA (NASA Langly is in our area), he's worked out great. But he's retired and only wants to work part-time.

As far as your comment: "it's not just about who we hire today, it's also about making the career attractive long term," what exactly is "it."

Is it pay? Certainly not. Because teachers' pay raises typically become a smaller percentage the longer they remain in teaching. Whatever "it" is, there is nothing that makes teaching an attractive long term career except external factors for which HR has absolutely no control.

The road you're going down is the balance between intrinsic and extrinisc values placed on the job. Intrinsic being internal factors - the sense of accomplishment, how the employee sees society valuing their work, personal satisfaction in being a part of the teaching profession. External factors then tend to be salary to pay the bills, health care to care of your family, access to high quality professional development, etc...

There is no one "it". There is a totality of the factors the are weighed.


>>>>

 

[asterism]

I am constantly amused by the way the teacher hating fascists ignore the facts.

Their minds are made up and by GOD, don't confuse them with facts.

Who made up your mind?

 

[Bern80]

I am constantly amused by the way the teacher hating fascists ignore the facts.

Their minds are made up and by GOD, don't confuse them with facts.

You mean like the fact that they complain about being paid less than everyone else, but can't seem to grasp that it might have something to do with the FACT that they work less than everyone else. That fact?

 

[Si modo]

And, teachers generally don't work in the summer months. Gross up their salaries for a full year.

 

[Samson]

I am constantly amused by the way the teacher hating fascists ignore the facts.

Their minds are made up and by GOD, don't confuse them with facts.

Thanks for playing.

Since you're so full of "facts" perhaps you can explain why an opinion that teachers are adequately paid is the opinion of a "teacher hating fascist?"

Or, perhaps you haven't considered the fact that many appreciate teachers AND BELIEVE THEY ARE ADEQUATELY COMPENSATED.

You're typical of all bleeding-hearts: When confronted with any intellectual issue, turn it into an emotional one.

 

[Samson]

and, teachers generally don't work in the summer months. Gross up their salaries for a full year.

4/3

x 1.3

 

[Samson]

The number of applicants isn't the issue. Supply and demand is based on the number of qualified applicants. Doesn't matter of we have 100 applicants for a single teaching position if none of them can be hired. When qualification requirements are set by state law, the the supply and demand equation is based on qualified candidates.

While having a Bachelor's is a minimum requirement for the job, having a 4-year degree does not mean you are qualified for the job. As I pointed out earlier.

We pay bus attendants to ride along on transportation runs, mostly to provide assistance services to disabled students. They make about $10,000 a year for close to minimum wage. They could apply to be teachers also, but we couldn't hire them either, but they can apply.

See it's not just about who we hire today, it's also about making the career attractive long term. If the profession is not attractive, with the likelihood of attracting high school students into the college prep programs, without those then there are less people that can be hired under state law, resulting in a smaller pool of applicants, that results in schools competing for a more limited pool. Supply goes down, with a constant demand - then school systems raise salaries.


BTW - Again, I've not said teachers are underpaid.



Where did you get the idea that I said VA would not allow a Rocket Scientist to teach 8th Grade Science?

Depending on a transcript review, and a determination that the Rocket Scientist would be good in the classroom of course, we'd hire a Rocket Scientist in a heartbeat. As I previously said about Engineers, they typically have met the core subject requirements (in this case science) as part of their previous college experience to qualify for a provisional license which would be good for 3-years. During that time they would have certain college classes and testing requirements to meet.


>>>>

"Depending on a transcript review, and a determination that the Rocket Scientist would be good in the classroom of course, we'd hire a Rocket Scientist in a heartbeat."



Could you be a little more duplicious?

Not trying to be duplicitous at all. Background checks, degree confirmation, and personal interviews - do you not feel employers should verify information provided by someone seeking a job?

Perhaps the phrase, "we'd hire a Rocket Scientist in a heartbeat," was just a tad euphamistic.

Better would be: "we'd hire a Rocket scientist after scrutinizing him as much as we would any recent graduate from State U College of Education?" But this wouldn't be quite true, would it? The fact is that you'd scrutize him/her MORE than any other candidates with teaching certificates/licensure, and that is my point. You'd force him/her to jump through all sorts of absurd hoops: paying for additional classes like "Classroom Management" and "Adolescent Emotions" and "Society and The School."

The fact that you would get ANY Engineers to apply, much less being "inundated" is astonishing in light of the barriers to entry public schools have built to obstruct teaching candidates. Pay is actually the least painful of these.

 

[editec]

That's the definition, true. What's the significance?

I don't understand the question.

Significance of the median?

Here's why it is a useful way of looking at a set of data.

The median describes a statistic...it is designed to help people make sense of large sets of data.

That is its signficance.

If you make the median income, half the workers make more than you do, and half make less.

Seriously, this is confusing you?

Let's take a set of stats.

4, 6, 10, 11, 12, 15, 2000

What is the average of that data set? 2058/7 = 294

What is the median of that data set? 11


See the difference?

That 2000 number wildly throws off the average thus it might mislead you if you used it to try to understand that data set.

Of course, this (and all)statistical method actually makes a lot more sense when the data set isn't just a few numbers (like my example) but thousands of data points.

There ARE times when finding an average gives you a clearer picture of what's happening than the median does.


Average median and mode are three ways of looking at large data sets.

Each has its place dependeing on the way the data is, and each has its shortcomings, too.

MODE is the most frequent number found in a data set, for example.

If you don't understand at least the basics of statistical analysis, then you really cannot understand MOST of what people debate in social science issues.

What's more if you don't understand at least some statistical methodology, you are set up to be MISLEAD by those who do.

Your points are quite valid, especially regarding the basics and the propensity to be misled.

So, if income were distributed like this like this 10 years ago:

1 million, 100K, 75K, 50K, 40K, 40K, 10K, 10K, 5K, 5k, 2K, 1K, 1K

And this presently:

10 million, 100K, 75K, 50K, 40K, 40K, 10K, 10K, 5K, 5k, 2K, 1K, 1K

What's the significance of the median?

An excellent example of why and how statistics can be misleading and why we need different ways of looking at the same data, too.

In the avove example the thing that WOULD be significant wouldn't be the median average, and even the average could be very misleading, too.

But what would stand out is the standard deviation from the mean of the data points..


Statistical analysis is but a TOOL to understanding large data sets.

What they can tell you is still subject to your interpretations of what they mean as applied to the issue under study.

 

[editec]

Many private school educators get ROOM AND BOARD, in addition to salary and benefits.
And every private school educator I knew (and I knew a lot of them) get health care, contrary to what some here have claimed.

1. Could you support the ROOM AND BOARD comment with any kind of data? I'm not saying it doesn't happen early for the odd boarding school, but I would posit that it is pretty rare in the general private school teaching population. To me, many is more than a few, so many could be 6 or 7 people. However when compared as a percentage of total private school teachers I'd bet the percentage is very, VERY small.


2. My sister was a private school teacher for 5-years and the pay was about 1/2 of what public school teachers in the area made and no benefits (no paid vacation, no health care, no retirement). She loved the kids and smaller class sized but eventually had to go public to pay the bills, student loans, and be able to prepare for retirement.



>>>>

No I cannot provide that information, and I see your point as it regards small private (probably religously based) non-boarding schools, too.

I was comparing my public school experience to my private boarding school teaching experience.

The public school paid more, but I had to pay room and board. I lived therefore in a slum in Boston

In the private school, my salary was lower, but then too I could live on campus and have essantially no bills.

In that case I lived with an ocean view in a masion, complete with four meals a day and every cent I made was DISPOSABLE income.

How does one compare those?

Well...what would the room and board have cost me if I'd been paying rent and utilites and food and so forth?

Much much More than I made as public school teacher, I suspect. I was living in a mansion on the north shore in one of the wealthiest towns in America!

And in both cases I have pretty good HC benefits and so forth.

So comparing private schools to public schools really demands that one look at more than JUST salaries, I think.

See my point?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Many private school educators get ROOM AND BOARD, in addition to salary and benefits.
And every private school educator I knew (and I knew a lot of them) get health care, contrary to what some here have claimed.

1. Could you support the ROOM AND BOARD comment with any kind of data? I'm not saying it doesn't happen early for the odd boarding school, but I would posit that it is pretty rare in the general private school teaching population. To me, many is more than a few, so many could be 6 or 7 people. However when compared as a percentage of total private school teachers I'd bet the percentage is very, VERY small.


2. My sister was a private school teacher for 5-years and the pay was about 1/2 of what public school teachers in the area made and no benefits (no paid vacation, no health care, no retirement). She loved the kids and smaller class sized but eventually had to go public to pay the bills, student loans, and be able to prepare for retirement.



>>>>

No I cannot provide that information, and I see your point as it regards small private (probably religously based) non-boarding schools, too.

I was comparing my public school experience to my private boarding school teaching experience.

The public school paid more, but I had to pay room and board. I lived therefore in a slum in Boston

In the private school, my salary was lower, but then too I could live on campus and have essantially no bills.

In that case I lived with an ocean view in a masion, complete with four meals a day and every cent I made was DISPOSABLE income.

How does one compare those?

Well...what would the room and board have cost me if I'd been paying rent and utilites and food and so forth?

Much much More than I made as public school teacher, I suspect. I was living in a mansion on the north shore in one of the wealthiest towns in America!

And in both cases I have pretty good HC benefits and so forth.

So comparing private schools to public schools really demands that one look at more than JUST salaries, I think.

See my point?

I see your point very well. Not trying to say there are no boarding schools that provide room and board. My only comment was that in the regular world they are pretty rare.

My sister was a private school teacher at a religious school for about 6 years. She loved the kid, loved the school - put finally reality set in. Her pay was about 1/2 what public school teacher made and no benefits. Finally the reality of needing to pay off student loans to furnish the education that qualified her for the job, the need for affordable health care, and the realization that eventually she would need income for retirement moved her out of the private school realm.


>>>>