How Much Should A Teacher Get Paid?

[WorldWatcher]

So, regardless of all that, which all can be considered suspect,

Why would going to the original source showing that 78% of 8th Grade Wisconsin students read at the basic level, correcting someone who incorrectly stated that 2/3's of 8th Graders can't read be suspect?

those teachers in Wisconsin are pulling in between 45-75 G's a year on average, with benefits that are well above the private sector............Are you trying to say they are underpaid?

Not in the least. Times are tough and we all have been having to pull in our belts and need to be willing to make our government solvent again and correct prior financial mismanagement caused by (a) unions demanding unsupportable compensation packages, and (b) the politicians that agreed to future commitments that can't be supported. I have no problem with public sector employees kicking in towards retirement and health care costs. I also have no problem with moving toward contributions retirement systems instead of defined benefit plans for public sector employees as long as protections are provided to those that have already worked 20 - 40 years.

I work in the HR department of a school district, we haven't had a pay raise in three years - as a matter of fact everyone in the district took a pay cut last year in addition to RIF'ing of instructional and none instructional positions to make budget. I'm not complaining one bit about it.

And to tell you the truth it really pisses me off to hear some in my district complain about not getting a pay raise when in fact we had to let some people go. I'll say that I feel pretty secure in my position as I'm the only one in the district that does what I do and some of it is mandated by state and federal law. One day last year the Superintendent was in the office and I was talking to her on the side and let her know that there were a lot of us that appreciated the difficulty in balancing the budget and would willingly take a pay cut if it meant meeting budget and saving (at least some) jobs.

I'm in my 50's and very thankful for the job that I have that allows me to support my wife and two children.

It may not be said often, but to the taxpayers - Thank you.


>>>>

 

[jgarden]

So far the Conservative responses seem to lean towards the rich neighborhoods having the best teachers as they can afford it.

No actual dollar amount mentioned...interesting.

Let's see what else comes out.

Dollar amount? Is that what your looking for? Why don't you be more specific as to the quality of the teacher that you are requesting a dollar amount for? You leave way too many variables unanswered to be able to answer your question honestly.

Apparently Governor Walker and the Republican members of the Wisconsin Legislature have no such reservations as to placing a dollar value on a teacher.

You can be assured that they're worth a whole lot less now than if they had they endorsed him in the last campaign -like the police and the firefighters!

 

[xsited1]

How Much Should A Teacher Get Paid?

I know it's getting late because I thought the title was "How Much Should A Teacher Get Paid To Get Laid?"

 

[Wicked Jester]

So, regardless of all that, which all can be considered suspect,

Why would going to the original source showing that 78% of 8th Grade Wisconsin students read at the basic level, correcting someone who incorrectly stated that 2/3's of 8th Graders can't read be suspect?

those teachers in Wisconsin are pulling in between 45-75 G's a year on average, with benefits that are well above the private sector............Are you trying to say they are underpaid?

Not in the least. Times are tough and we all have been having to pull in our belts and need to be willing to make our government solvent again and correct prior financial mismanagement caused by (a) unions demanding unsupportable compensation packages, and (b) the politicians that agreed to future commitments that can't be supported. I have no problem with public sector employees kicking in towards retirement and health care costs. I also have no problem with moving toward contributions retirement systems instead of defined benefit plans for public sector employees as long as protections are provided to those that have already worked 20 - 40 years.

I work in the HR department of a school district, we haven't had a pay raise in three years - as a matter of fact everyone in the district took a pay cut last year in addition to RIF'ing of instructional and none instructional positions to make budget. I'm not complaining one bit about it.

And to tell you the truth it really pisses me off to hear some in my district complain about not getting a pay raise when in fact we had to let some people go. I'll say that I feel pretty secure in my position as I'm the only one in the district that does what I do and some of it is mandated by state and federal law. One day last year the Superintendent was in the office and I was talking to her on the side and let her know that there were a lot of us that appreciated the difficulty in balancing the budget and would willingly take a pay cut if it meant meeting budget and saving (at least some) jobs.

I'm in my 50's and very thankful for the job that I have that allows me to support my wife and two children.

It may not be said often, but to the taxpayers - Thank you.


>>>>

I'm liking you, ya' damn Swabbie!

Finally, we have someone who is willing to be completely honest.....THIS is the type of people we need in our PE system.

There's a few up here in our PE system who refuse to be honest about things. There's a few up here who just want to play the victim card, and think that all it is, is an attack on the teachers......And that is NOT what it's all about.

Basically, this country is in a major economic clusterfuck. And it's not getting any better, despite what many politicains try to persuade us to believe. EVERYBODY must make sacrifices. And if your feelings are hurt in the process, so be it......This is no time to be thin skinned.

 

[auditor0007]

Okay, this is off subject just a bit, but whenever this type of discussion comes up, I find myself bewildered when it comes to the cost of teaching our kids. Here's the thing; where I live, the cost to send my kid to a Catholic school is about $9400 per year. The local public school district, where I send my kids, is currently spending just a bit over $13,000 per year per student.

Now, the Catholic schools have class sizes that average around 20 students per classroom. On the other hand, the local public school district has classes averaging 26 students, and because our school levy failed, they cut teachers and are increasing the average class to 28 students per class.

The teachers in our district have an average salary of $53,000 per year. In the Catholic schools, the average is around $40,000. But here is my problem; the salary is not the issue. Classroom sizes in the public schools are larger, so each teacher is bringing in more money per classroom. I realize there are many other costs besides the teachers. There is maintenance, administrative costs, building costs, and a slewful of other costs. But how is it the Catholic schools can do it for so much less? Where is our money going? It's not the teachers who are sucking the money out of us.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Okay, this is off subject just a bit, but whenever this type of discussion comes up, I find myself bewildered when it comes to the cost of teaching our kids. Here's the thing; where I live, the cost to send my kid to a Catholic school is about $9400 per year. The local public school district, where I send my kids, is currently spending just a bit over $13,000 per year per student.

Now, the Catholic schools have class sizes that average around 20 students per classroom. On the other hand, the local public school district has classes averaging 26 students, and because our school levy failed, they cut teachers and are increasing the average class to 28 students per class.

The teachers in our district have an average salary of $53,000 per year. In the Catholic schools, the average is around $40,000. But here is my problem; the salary is not the issue. Classroom sizes in the public schools are larger, so each teacher is bringing in more money per classroom. I realize there are many other costs besides the teachers. There is maintenance, administrative costs, building costs, and a slewful of other costs. But how is it the Catholic schools can do it for so much less? Where is our money going? It's not the teachers who are sucking the money out of us.

Much of it is going into unsustainable benefits and pensions for union teachers and other union public service workers.

The unions won't admit it, the teachers won't admit it, the other public service workers won't admit it.

 

[shintao]

Okay, this is off subject just a bit, but whenever this type of discussion comes up, I find myself bewildered when it comes to the cost of teaching our kids. Here's the thing; where I live, the cost to send my kid to a Catholic school is about $9400 per year. The local public school district, where I send my kids, is currently spending just a bit over $13,000 per year per student.

Now, the Catholic schools have class sizes that average around 20 students per classroom. On the other hand, the local public school district has classes averaging 26 students, and because our school levy failed, they cut teachers and are increasing the average class to 28 students per class.

The teachers in our district have an average salary of $53,000 per year. In the Catholic schools, the average is around $40,000. But here is my problem; the salary is not the issue. Classroom sizes in the public schools are larger, so each teacher is bringing in more money per classroom. I realize there are many other costs besides the teachers. There is maintenance, administrative costs, building costs, and a slewful of other costs. But how is it the Catholic schools can do it for so much less? Where is our money going? It's not the teachers who are sucking the money out of us.

There are meals, sports, library, energy, after school.

$13,000. x 28 = $364,000. - $53,000. = $311,000. unaccounted for, per 28 students

$53,000. / 365 = $145.00 day

$145.00 / 28 = $5.19 per student a day or .65 cents an hour per student

 

[shintao]

Okay, this is off subject just a bit, but whenever this type of discussion comes up, I find myself bewildered when it comes to the cost of teaching our kids. Here's the thing; where I live, the cost to send my kid to a Catholic school is about $9400 per year. The local public school district, where I send my kids, is currently spending just a bit over $13,000 per year per student.

Now, the Catholic schools have class sizes that average around 20 students per classroom. On the other hand, the local public school district has classes averaging 26 students, and because our school levy failed, they cut teachers and are increasing the average class to 28 students per class.

The teachers in our district have an average salary of $53,000 per year. In the Catholic schools, the average is around $40,000. But here is my problem; the salary is not the issue. Classroom sizes in the public schools are larger, so each teacher is bringing in more money per classroom. I realize there are many other costs besides the teachers. There is maintenance, administrative costs, building costs, and a slewful of other costs. But how is it the Catholic schools can do it for so much less? Where is our money going? It's not the teachers who are sucking the money out of us.

Much of it is going into unsustainable benefits and pensions for union teachers and other union public service workers.

The unions won't admit it, the teachers won't admit it, the other public service workers won't admit it.

And you won't admit you are lying through your ass!!!!

 

[chanel]

Okay, this is off subject just a bit, but whenever this type of discussion comes up, I find myself bewildered when it comes to the cost of teaching our kids. Here's the thing; where I live, the cost to send my kid to a Catholic school is about $9400 per year. The local public school district, where I send my kids, is currently spending just a bit over $13,000 per year per student.

Now, the Catholic schools have class sizes that average around 20 students per classroom. On the other hand, the local public school district has classes averaging 26 students, and because our school levy failed, they cut teachers and are increasing the average class to 28 students per class.

The teachers in our district have an average salary of $53,000 per year. In the Catholic schools, the average is around $40,000. But here is my problem; the salary is not the issue. Classroom sizes in the public schools are larger, so each teacher is bringing in more money per classroom. I realize there are many other costs besides the teachers. There is maintenance, administrative costs, building costs, and a slewful of other costs. But how is it the Catholic schools can do it for so much less? Where is our money going? It's not the teachers who are sucking the money out of us.

Special education costs. 10% of our $40 million budget goes to "out of district placements" for the severely disabled. And within the district, there are dozens of special education paraprofessionals mandated by law. Any special ed. class with more than 9 students, must have another adult in the room. It's ridiculous.

Catholic schools (and charters) do not have to comply with the IDEA.

 

[Douger]

K-6. $50/hr those are the critical years.
6-9. $20/hr Babysitting.
9-12 $5/hr ( and a bullet proof vest)

 

[LilOlLady]

With the increase in their workload, 500,000 anchor babies who cannot speak English. Not nearly enough. I would not have the job now even though I did teach Special Education. Teachers are required now to be baby sitters, counselers, police, etc and not just teachers.

 

[sparky]

>>>>

Basically, this country is in a major economic clusterfuck. And it's not getting any better, despite what many politicains try to persuade us to believe. EVERYBODY must make sacrifices. And if your feelings are hurt in the process, so be it......This is no time to be thin skinned.

Ok, so what's Wall street going to "sacrifice" then?

LilOlLady
. I would not have the job now even though I did teach Special Education.

no wonder you do so well here....

~S~

 

[editec]

Actually, the first rule of the market is: There's No Free Lunch.

No, thats just a Heinleinism. Price as a rationing mechanism is the first rule. Without price, you don't have a free market.

Wrong. It's actually cited by any number of prominent economists. Here's why:

Frederic Bastiat, the French economist, said, "There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: the bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen."

"There's no such thing as a free lunch" is another way of saying that if you don't see the price, you're not looking in the right place. And you cannot do anything correctly in economics until you know where the price is.

You are quite correct that price is a rationing mechanism. But that means nothing until you understand that there is ALWAYS a price, and it is ALWAYS functioning as a rationing mechanism. If you are asking, as you were earlier, if we want to ration our educational system by price, then you clearly are missing something that came before "price is a rationing mechanism". Our educational system, like everything else in the world, already has a price that goes with it and IS ALREADY RATIONED. It's just that right now, the price is unseen.

"There is no FREE LUNCH"

In economics that saying is merely addressing the fact that while the person recieving lunch might not be paying, SOMEBODY is paying.

Ironically this phrase is also used when addressing the fact that our system of cost accounting often fails to include ALL COSTS associated with a product or service.

For example, pollution was often counted as a FREE LUNCH (by the pollutors) because there was no good accounting method included in the process of finding its TRUE COST to society as a whole.

Now obviously pollution has a cost, but that cost (of the negative effects of the pollution) was not typically included in the market cost of the pollution source.

It cost me X dollars to move my car.

But the pollution that moving my car costs is (to me at least) FREE LUNCH since that cost is NOT paid by me.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Okay, this is off subject just a bit, but whenever this type of discussion comes up, I find myself bewildered when it comes to the cost of teaching our kids. Here's the thing; where I live, the cost to send my kid to a Catholic school is about $9400 per year. The local public school district, where I send my kids, is currently spending just a bit over $13,000 per year per student.

Now, the Catholic schools have class sizes that average around 20 students per classroom. On the other hand, the local public school district has classes averaging 26 students, and because our school levy failed, they cut teachers and are increasing the average class to 28 students per class.

The teachers in our district have an average salary of $53,000 per year. In the Catholic schools, the average is around $40,000. But here is my problem; the salary is not the issue. Classroom sizes in the public schools are larger, so each teacher is bringing in more money per classroom. I realize there are many other costs besides the teachers. There is maintenance, administrative costs, building costs, and a slewful of other costs. But how is it the Catholic schools can do it for so much less? Where is our money going? It's not the teachers who are sucking the money out of us.

If I were you, I'd have a look at the administrative budget for your school district. How much is your district supervisor getting paid? How many departments does the district have that the Catholic school doesn't? Even the departments that both have in common probably have more people in them in the public school district than in the Catholic school. What programs does the public school have to have that the private school doesn't?

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,


1. In my expert opinion, *ALL* teachers should get no more than 26,500 a year.
2. That should be the highest, starting pay, 22,500 a year.
3. The tax base cant handle anything above that.
4. Even the teachers are subjected to taxes, and pay tax on their properties.
5. Cops and Firefighters not should get much more, maybe 10% more tops!
6. They are in *public service*, and paying them too much is a crime.
7. Letting them set their own payscale is pure insanity.
8. *ALL* superintendents and other administrators, should get even less, 10% less than the highest paid teachers 26,500 salary.
9. Its common sense really, the way things are going now, just like the medical industry, no one can afford it, not even the insurance companies, who denie claims all the time.
10. What is happening now is most everything is over priced, and its crushing the economy, unless these teachers go back to whats affordable to the citizens of the people's children which they teach, along with all aspects of *public service*.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[Old Rocks]

What we have here is the Conservatives doing their best to avoid saying what they really mean.

What do they think teachers should be paid? As little as possible. If you can't afford to send your child to a pricey private school, then your child deserves only to be educated enough to know how to do a minimum wage job. And, as soon as we get enough ill educated people, we can compete directly with China on low wage jobs. Of course, by then China, which is investing in education in a big way, will have a much bigger economy than ours, and need a place with low wage workers to manufacture the trinkets they will be wanting.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Okay, this is off subject just a bit, but whenever this type of discussion comes up, I find myself bewildered when it comes to the cost of teaching our kids. Here's the thing; where I live, the cost to send my kid to a Catholic school is about $9400 per year. The local public school district, where I send my kids, is currently spending just a bit over $13,000 per year per student.

Now, the Catholic schools have class sizes that average around 20 students per classroom. On the other hand, the local public school district has classes averaging 26 students, and because our school levy failed, they cut teachers and are increasing the average class to 28 students per class.

The teachers in our district have an average salary of $53,000 per year. In the Catholic schools, the average is around $40,000. But here is my problem; the salary is not the issue. Classroom sizes in the public schools are larger, so each teacher is bringing in more money per classroom. I realize there are many other costs besides the teachers. There is maintenance, administrative costs, building costs, and a slewful of other costs. But how is it the Catholic schools can do it for so much less? Where is our money going? It's not the teachers who are sucking the money out of us.

[DISCLAIMER: The below is opinion (unless otherwise noted) and as such I don't plan on going out and doing a lot of research, I do feel however that they are logically derived and will be more than happy if someone provides reputable data that conflicts with these thought. In addition, I'm in no way attempting to imply that the situation is the same for every private v. public school scenario. The thoughts below are in no specific order and do not imply they are sorted by budget impact, they are just my ramblings. ]


Transportation:
Ya, you know those big yellow things we get stuck behind from August to June. They are expensive, expensive to buy, expensive to operate, and expensive to maintain. One significant difference that has a pretty big impact on budget is that most public schools provide transportation to/from school while, I believe, most private schools do not. For an school district of size, they will then need to have a whole department dedicated to providing this transpiration. Not only to the buses cost, not only are their fuel costs, but when you own a fleet of buses you have to have maintenance facilities, tools, and repair equipment and a staff of mechanics to maintain them.

Student Population, Just Say No:
By law, public schools are required to service all students in their district. They don't have the option of throwing up their hands and saying "sorry we're full". Like private schools can. Private schools can establish a facility to meet a targeted population and that's it. A student doesn't get in, they don't go to that school. On the other hand public schools are required to maintain in infrastructure able to support the needs of the surrounding community, they don't have the option of saying no. Some school districts probably do this "facilities management" well, other - probably not. What happens when a school gets more students then they can hold, they can't say no, so they have to resort to emergency (read as more expensive) measures which may include rental of another space (with additional transportation costs) or installation of mobile trailers on the grounds which can host hundreds of thousands of dollars (there is the cost of the trailer and then providing utility access).

Student Population, Selection:
The whole idea of "private" school is to not have to service all students that apply. As such private schools have much more flexibility and can admit only the students they want. Maybe it's students of a certain religious persuasion, maybe it's students only of a certain academic caliber, maybe it's excluding students with any type of behavior issues, maybe it's excluding any students that have expensive disabilities. The fact is that public schools are normally required to admit all comers, private schools are not. That means that students with "issues" are normally going to get their education from the public system. Time is money, when the staff doesn't have "issues" to deal with, costs go down. When the system has to deal with "issues" costs go up.


Special Education:
As has been previously mentioned special education is it's own world with requirements mandated by law. The cost for dealing with special needs students can cost the district ten's to hundreds of thousands of dollars for each student. Those additional costs are then averaged over the student body and cause the "cost per student" to be artificially high. Well maybe not artificial, because they are costs - however they are cost that private schools are normally unwilling to bear, unless of course they are a private institution designed to deal with server disabilities, then they often still get to bill the public school for their services. But most private schools are going to look at their bottom line and not take $9400 (to use the figure in the OP) in tuition to then hire a Special Education teacher for a group of 4-6 students or hire a specially trained Student Aid for that student at the cost of $20,000 a year. For the private schools special needs students don't make economic sense.

Homeschooling:
Another area that doesn't get much media attention is homeschooling, and by this I don't mean parents who decide to educate their children at home. I mean students that are so disabled they cannot attend a regular school or those who have such serve disciplinary problems they have been expelled. For medical reasons it may be a long term permanent disability or it may be short term due to illness or surgery. In our district at least, and I think it's pretty common, even though a student is "expelled" the school system may still have a legal responsibility to educate them. That means normally either paying for private school (if one will accept them) or providing tutors in the home.

Personnel Costs:
As has been previously mentioned there are definitely addition school building costs due to base pay and benefit packages. However there are also additional costs based on scale. The costs with supporting a single building can be much leaner then the coast associated with managing an entire school district as an integrated organization. Managing he cost of a single school with a few dozen people and a budget of a couple of million, is very different then the needs of an organization with with thousands (or tens of thousands) and budgets in the hundreds of millions.

Athletics:
This one I did some research on the other night for another posting. In my district 55-60% of the Athletic Program budget (excluding coaching salaries) is paid by the general fund from taxpayer revenue. These items include things like uniforms, equipment, transportation, consumable supplies, security, concession supplies, league referees, etc... 40-45% is covered by athletic revenue, such as ticket sales, concession profits, activity fees, corporate sponsorships/grants etc... 100% of the wages for coaches are paid out of general taxpayer funds. If I remember correctly Title 10 of the United States Code requires public schools to provide equal athletic program opportunities to females if they provide programs for males, regardless of the cost. These athletic costs are part of the school budget and so are reflected in the "Cost Per Student" number as a result. Most private schools that I know of (I'm not saying all) don't provide the same breath of athletic programs that public schools are required to and the cost of those programs are normally covered by: (a) higher activities fees paid by parents, (b) booster clubs, and (c) fund raisers.



*******************************

Now in my personal opinion, if in depth analysis were to occur, personnel costs would be the biggest contributor - but each of the items listed above has the potential to impact the cost differential.



>>>>

 

[bodecea]

Okay, this is off subject just a bit, but whenever this type of discussion comes up, I find myself bewildered when it comes to the cost of teaching our kids. Here's the thing; where I live, the cost to send my kid to a Catholic school is about $9400 per year. The local public school district, where I send my kids, is currently spending just a bit over $13,000 per year per student.

Now, the Catholic schools have class sizes that average around 20 students per classroom. On the other hand, the local public school district has classes averaging 26 students, and because our school levy failed, they cut teachers and are increasing the average class to 28 students per class.

The teachers in our district have an average salary of $53,000 per year. In the Catholic schools, the average is around $40,000. But here is my problem; the salary is not the issue. Classroom sizes in the public schools are larger, so each teacher is bringing in more money per classroom. I realize there are many other costs besides the teachers. There is maintenance, administrative costs, building costs, and a slewful of other costs. But how is it the Catholic schools can do it for so much less? Where is our money going? It's not the teachers who are sucking the money out of us.

[DISCLAIMER: The below is opinion (unless otherwise noted) and as such I don't plan on going out and doing a lot of research, I do feel however that they are logically derived and will be more than happy if someone provides reputable data that conflicts with these thought. In addition, I'm in no way attempting to imply that the situation is the same for every private v. public school scenario. The thoughts below are in no specific order and do not imply they are sorted by budget impact, they are just my ramblings. ]


Transportation:
Ya, you know those big yellow things we get stuck behind from August to June. They are expensive, expensive to buy, expensive to operate, and expensive to maintain. One significant difference that has a pretty big impact on budget is that most public schools provide transportation to/from school while, I believe, most private schools do not. For an school district of size, they will then need to have a whole department dedicated to providing this transpiration. Not only to the buses cost, not only are their fuel costs, but when you own a fleet of buses you have to have maintenance facilities, tools, and repair equipment and a staff of mechanics to maintain them.

Student Population, Just Say No:
By law, public schools are required to service all students in their district. They don't have the option of throwing up their hands and saying "sorry we're full". Like private schools can. Private schools can establish a facility to meet a targeted population and that's it. A student doesn't get in, they don't go to that school. On the other hand public schools are required to maintain in infrastructure able to support the needs of the surrounding community, they don't have the option of saying no. Some school districts probably do this "facilities management" well, other - probably not. What happens when a school gets more students then they can hold, they can't say no, so they have to resort to emergency (read as more expensive) measures which may include rental of another space (with additional transportation costs) or installation of mobile trailers on the grounds which can host hundreds of thousands of dollars (there is the cost of the trailer and then providing utility access).

Student Population, Selection:
The whole idea of "private" school is to not have to service all students that apply. As such private schools have much more flexibility and can admit only the students they want. Maybe it's students of a certain religious persuasion, maybe it's students only of a certain academic caliber, maybe it's excluding students with any type of behavior issues, maybe it's excluding any students that have expensive disabilities. The fact is that public schools are normally required to admit all comers, private schools are not. That means that students with "issues" are normally going to get their education from the public system. Time is money, when the staff doesn't have "issues" to deal with, costs go down. When the system has to deal with "issues" costs go up.


Special Education:
As has been previously mentioned special education is it's own world with requirements mandated by law. The cost for dealing with special needs students can cost the district ten's to hundreds of thousands of dollars for each student. Those additional costs are then averaged over the student body and cause the "cost per student" to be artificially high. Well maybe not artificial, because they are costs - however they are cost that private schools are normally unwilling to bear, unless of course they are a private institution designed to deal with server disabilities, then they often still get to bill the public school for their services. But most private schools are going to look at their bottom line and not take $9400 (to use the figure in the OP) in tuition to then hire a Special Education teacher for a group of 4-6 students or hire a specially trained Student Aid for that student at the cost of $20,000 a year. For the private schools special needs students don't make economic sense.

Homeschooling:
Another area that doesn't get much media attention is homeschooling, and by this I don't mean parents who decide to educate their children at home. I mean students that are so disabled they cannot attend a regular school or those who have such serve disciplinary problems they have been expelled. For medical reasons it may be a long term permanent disability or it may be short term due to illness or surgery. In our district at least, and I think it's pretty common, even though a student is "expelled" the school system may still have a legal responsibility to educate them. That means normally either paying for private school (if one will accept them) or providing tutors in the home.

Personnel Costs:
As has been previously mentioned there are definitely addition school building costs due to base pay and benefit packages. However there are also additional costs based on scale. The costs with supporting a single building can be much leaner then the coast associated with managing an entire school district as an integrated organization. Managing he cost of a single school with a few dozen people and a budget of a couple of million, is very different then the needs of an organization with with thousands (or tens of thousands) and budgets in the hundreds of millions.

Athletics:
This one I did some research on the other night for another posting. In my district 55-60% of the Athletic Program budget (excluding coaching salaries) is paid by the general fund from taxpayer revenue. These items include things like uniforms, equipment, transportation, consumable supplies, security, concession supplies, league referees, etc... 40-45% is covered by athletic revenue, such as ticket sales, concession profits, activity fees, corporate sponsorships/grants etc... 100% of the wages for coaches are paid out of general taxpayer funds. If I remember correctly Title 10 of the United States Code requires public schools to provide equal athletic program opportunities to females if they provide programs for males, regardless of the cost. These athletic costs are part of the school budget and so are reflected in the "Cost Per Student" number as a result. Most private schools that I know of (I'm not saying all) don't provide the same breath of athletic programs that public schools are required to and the cost of those programs are normally covered by: (a) higher activities fees paid by parents, (b) booster clubs, and (c) fund raisers.



*******************************

Now in my personal opinion, if in depth analysis were to occur, personnel costs would be the biggest contributor - but each of the items listed above has the potential to impact the cost differential.



>>>>

If I may add...most if not all private schools around here make it a requirement for acceptance that the parents "volunteer" a certain of hours a month at school, supervision, etc....things that public schools must pay aids, lunchtime supervisors, etc. for.

 

[bodecea]

What we have here is the Conservatives doing their best to avoid saying what they really mean.

What do they think teachers should be paid? As little as possible. If you can't afford to send your child to a pricey private school, then your child deserves only to be educated enough to know how to do a minimum wage job. And, as soon as we get enough ill educated people, we can compete directly with China on low wage jobs. Of course, by then China, which is investing in education in a big way, will have a much bigger economy than ours, and need a place with low wage workers to manufacture the trinkets they will be wanting.

Sometimes I wonder if you haven't hit the nail on the head.....oh not the rank and file Conservative (their children too will be sacrificed), but those pulling the strings.

 

[Uncensored2008]

And should there be a cap on how much that can get paid?

How much is a teacher worth in your opinion?

However much the student and those funding the student are willing to pay.