Why teachers need more pay

[Andylusion]

...most colleges look at SAT and ACT scores, rather than your GPA. ...

WRONG.

...

When I myself went to college, they never once looked at my GPA in high school. ....

Yes they did.

No, they did not. I asked. Said I only needed a diploma. Which I had. I know this because my GPA was horrendous. I was a terrible student. I was worried that my exceptionally low GPA would keep me out of college. They didn't care. They said they didn't care. They wanted to know my SAT scores.

 

[Unkotare]

...most colleges look at SAT and ACT scores, rather than your GPA. ...

WRONG.

...

When I myself went to college, they never once looked at my GPA in high school. ....

Yes they did.

No, they did not. .....

Yes, they did. Do not lie, I know better.

 

[Andylusion]

...most colleges look at SAT and ACT scores, rather than your GPA. ...

WRONG.

...

When I myself went to college, they never once looked at my GPA in high school. ....

Yes they did.

No, they did not. .....

Yes, they did. Do not lie, I know better.

Since you did not read my post... I'll repost it.

No, they did not. I asked. Said I only needed a diploma. Which I had. I know this because my GPA was horrendous. I was a terrible student. I was worried that my exceptionally low GPA would keep me out of college. They didn't care. They said they didn't care. They wanted to know my SAT scores.

 

[Unkotare]

If anything, the trend is toward colleges weighing the SAT or ACT less than in previous years. The GPA is right there on the transcript. Colleges look at it.

 

[Unkotare]

...most colleges look at SAT and ACT scores, rather than your GPA. ...

WRONG.

...

When I myself went to college, they never once looked at my GPA in high school. ....

Yes they did.

No, they did not. .....

Yes, they did. Do not lie, I know better.

.

 

[Andylusion]

If anything, the trend is toward colleges weighing the SAT or ACT less than in previous years. The GPA is right there on the transcript. Colleges look at it.

I specifically..... SPECIFICALLY ASKED.... if my GPA was required to gain entrance.

They said.... NO. What part of this, are you unable to understand?

 

[Andylusion]

I suppose the admissions guy was lying to me..... You'll need to provide concrete proof of that, before I'll accept that.

 

[Unkotare]

If anything, the trend is toward colleges weighing the SAT or ACT less than in previous years. The GPA is right there on the transcript. Colleges look at it.

I specifically..... SPECIFICALLY ASKED.... if my GPA was required to gain entrance.

They said.... NO. What part of this, are you unable to understand?

The part where you lie over and over again.

 

[Andylusion]

If anything, the trend is toward colleges weighing the SAT or ACT less than in previous years. The GPA is right there on the transcript. Colleges look at it.

I specifically..... SPECIFICALLY ASKED.... if my GPA was required to gain entrance.

They said.... NO. What part of this, are you unable to understand?

The part where you lie over and over again.

Why would I lie about this? For what reason?

Grades pointless? Some colleges don't care about GPAs

Parents and their high school students are fascinated by the grade point average and what it means in college admissions, but the truth is that a number of colleges and universities are not all that interested.

Admissions officers at some of the nation's most selective colleges, who are now sending acceptance letters for their fall freshman classes, say they barely look at an applicant's GPA.

"It's meaningless," says Greg Roberts, admissions dean at the University of Virginia, ranked as the top public university in this year's 150 Best Value Colleges, published by The Princeton Review and based on academics and affordability.​

So now I have on the record, direct quotes from people who work at the admissions of major universities, saying the exact same thing.

I'll ask you again.... what am I lying about, and prove it.

As I said before, I specifically asked if the college I applied at, was looking at my GPA. They said directly "no". So now, YOU are the liar.

Why do you keep lying? You know I'm right, and I have the facts to prove it. Why are you lying to everyone on this forum, this entire thread? Does that stroke your ego to claim others are lying, when you are the one lying?

 

[Flopper]

None of that bullshit you described happens today.

Having Christmas holidays is certainly a positive aspect of teaching as is having 8 weeks off in the summer but there are offsetting negative aspects of the job:

• Many people think teaching is just showing up for class 7 hours a day. What they don’t know is how many hours they actually spend prepping for the week. Teachers are up late at night grading papers scouring the Internet for ideas for class, answering emails from students and parents, grading papers and they spend their weekends doing the same. You also have to attend school dances, parent-teacher conferences, and extracurricular activities. Then there's surveys, attendance records, grade reporting, plus decorating the classroom, and purchasing supplies. When you add up these little jobs they are usually a lot more than 40 hours a week.
• Everyone knows that teachers are required to have a college education in most all districts. However, what a lot of people don't know is that in a number of states new teachers are required to obtain a Masters with in 3 to 5 years of employment.
• Teachers must also accumulate a certain number hours of continuing education which are additional classes they have to complete each year.
• Depending on the community, many parents have no regard for their child’s education which makes the teachers job very difficult. It's also extremely frustrating since school districts are increasing holding the teacher responsible for the progress of the student regardless of the situation at home.
• Compared to other professions, there are limited opportunities for advancement. Half of our teachers will never advance out of the classroom. As one teacher said, it's like going to school all your life and never graduating.

this list is not all that much different from what other e ecutives or workers have. In most jobs, you do need to prepare for your presentations, do your customer support work outside meting hours, and do these with only 2 weeks of vacation per year. So teachers are still wise guys who pulled it over everyone else. Very clever though. Hehehe.

I think the major difference between professional people in business and teachers is the opportunity of advancement. Most people that go into teaching give up the idea that they will every advance past the classroom. If you are lucky, you might become a department head with a small increase in pay and a lot of additional work plus teaching. Over half the teachers that remain in education retire as teachers. The opportunity for advance is slim at best. You don't get to be a principle without at least a Masters degree and if you hope to move up further you better plan on more education. Even with more education advancement is not likely. Unlike the business world, success does not equate to more money. Growth rates in education is relatively low compared to most businesses so you can't look forward to any end of year bonuses or major expansions. What you get in teaching as compensation is job security, a good retiremen. Without that it's just the satisfaction of teaching kids which grows pretty old after 20 years.

A friend of mine is retiring from teaching after 30 years. She has been an elementary teacher at the same school for 26 years in the same classroom. She loves teaching and loves kids. I have no doubt that she would continue teaching till the day she died but her health prevents it. The pay is immaterial. However, most teachers are not like this. They teach because they need a paycheck. If you want better education for your kids, you need to pay a salary that will attract better people. It's that simple.

How do you know that most teachers don't teach because they "love kids and love teaching"? How do you know most do it simply for the paycheck?

Where are your stats or your surveys on this...or are you just making crap up?

Is there anything wrong with doing your job for nothing but your paycheck only? It may be easier if you also like your job, but you don't have to, you just have to do it and do it to an acceptable quality.

And these are all supposedly conservative republican teachers.

Until it comes to their collective bargaining power and job protections. Most of the teachers I know don’t like being treated like an employee who could lose their job if the school doesn’t want them there anymore. For whatever reason.

Welcome to the world the rest of us live in. We have no job security, no pensions, no collective bargaining and we can and do get fired. Teachers have to do something horrible to be fired. Tenure

However, in the private sector, there are more opportunities because the private sector has greater economic growth than public education. Teachers don't get bonuses when business is good or profit sharing plans, and have little opportunity for advancement regardless of their teaching ability. Unlike the private sector, a teacher is not likely to improve his or her financial situation by taking another job in the area because the public school system is often the only game in town for most teachers since most private schools pay less than public schools.

Like all fields, teaching has it's pros and cons. As a teacher you get relatively good job security, pension, and days off. The cons are a poor chance advancement, long work days, and a requirement 4 to 6 years in college.

 

[Unkotare]

If anything, the trend is toward colleges weighing the SAT or ACT less than in previous years. The GPA is right there on the transcript. Colleges look at it.

I specifically..... SPECIFICALLY ASKED.... if my GPA was required to gain entrance.

They said.... NO. What part of this, are you unable to understand?

The part where you lie over and over again.

Why would I lie about this? For what reason?

...

The same reason you started posting on this thread.

 

[Flopper]

this list is not all that much different from what other e ecutives or workers have. In most jobs, you do need to prepare for your presentations, do your customer support work outside meting hours, and do these with only 2 weeks of vacation per year. So teachers are still wise guys who pulled it over everyone else. Very clever though. Hehehe.

I think the major difference between professional people in business and teachers is the opportunity of advancement. Most people that go into teaching give up the idea that they will every advance past the classroom. If you are lucky, you might become a department head with a small increase in pay and a lot of additional work plus teaching. Over half the teachers that remain in education retire as teachers. The opportunity for advance is slim at best. You don't get to be a principle without at least a Masters degree and if you hope to move up further you better plan on more education. Even with more education advancement is not likely. Unlike the business world, success does not equate to more money. Growth rates in education is relatively low compared to most businesses so you can't look forward to any end of year bonuses or major expansions. What you get in teaching as compensation is job security, a good retiremen. Without that it's just the satisfaction of teaching kids which grows pretty old after 20 years.

A friend of mine is retiring from teaching after 30 years. She has been an elementary teacher at the same school for 26 years in the same classroom. She loves teaching and loves kids. I have no doubt that she would continue teaching till the day she died but her health prevents it. The pay is immaterial. However, most teachers are not like this. They teach because they need a paycheck. If you want better education for your kids, you need to pay a salary that will attract better people. It's that simple.

How do you know that most teachers don't teach because they "love kids and love teaching"? How do you know most do it simply for the paycheck?

Where are your stats or your surveys on this...or are you just making crap up?

Is there anything wrong with doing your job for nothing but your paycheck only? It may be easier if you also like your job, but you don't have to, you just have to do it and do it to an acceptable quality.

And these are all supposedly conservative republican teachers.

Until it comes to their collective bargaining power and job protections. Most of the teachers I know don’t like being treated like an employee who could lose their job if the school doesn’t want them there anymore. For whatever reason.

Welcome to the world the rest of us live in. We have no job security, no pensions, no collective bargaining and we can and do get fired. Teachers have to do something horrible to be fired. Tenure

The problem goes back to taxation. Teacher tenures are possible because all their monies are from your tax. And you are not legally allowed to stop paying your taxes to them. And if you dare propose a tax reduction for next year, then they threaten you with closing their kindergarten services, slashing 10 % down the sales value of your property. A vicious circle. Any ideas how to break it?

Having a situation in which districts fire teachers to lower taxes is a sure route to poorer educational performance.

The more sources of income for a school district the better. Common sources are property taxes, sales taxes, federal funds, and fees. Changing allocation between property taxes and sales is difficult. Federal funds are for specific projects such free and reduce lunches but there are always funds available for various new instructional programs. Encouraging more federal grant writing might help a bit. Then there are fees. Depending on state laws, school districts can levy fees for all kinds of services which can raise quite a bit of money. These fees can be student fee and fees charged to other districts or private schools for district services. The right person as director of finance or superintendent of finance can make a big difference.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I think the major difference between professional people in business and teachers is the opportunity of advancement. Most people that go into teaching give up the idea that they will every advance past the classroom. If you are lucky, you might become a department head with a small increase in pay and a lot of additional work plus teaching. Over half the teachers that remain in education retire as teachers. The opportunity for advance is slim at best. You don't get to be a principle without at least a Masters degree and if you hope to move up further you better plan on more education. Even with more education advancement is not likely. Unlike the business world, success does not equate to more money. Growth rates in education is relatively low compared to most businesses so you can't look forward to any end of year bonuses or major expansions. What you get in teaching as compensation is job security, a good retiremen. Without that it's just the satisfaction of teaching kids which grows pretty old after 20 years.

A friend of mine is retiring from teaching after 30 years. She has been an elementary teacher at the same school for 26 years in the same classroom. She loves teaching and loves kids. I have no doubt that she would continue teaching till the day she died but her health prevents it. The pay is immaterial. However, most teachers are not like this. They teach because they need a paycheck. If you want better education for your kids, you need to pay a salary that will attract better people. It's that simple.

How do you know that most teachers don't teach because they "love kids and love teaching"? How do you know most do it simply for the paycheck?

Where are your stats or your surveys on this...or are you just making crap up?

Is there anything wrong with doing your job for nothing but your paycheck only? It may be easier if you also like your job, but you don't have to, you just have to do it and do it to an acceptable quality.

And these are all supposedly conservative republican teachers.

Until it comes to their collective bargaining power and job protections. Most of the teachers I know don’t like being treated like an employee who could lose their job if the school doesn’t want them there anymore. For whatever reason.

Welcome to the world the rest of us live in. We have no job security, no pensions, no collective bargaining and we can and do get fired. Teachers have to do something horrible to be fired. Tenure

The problem goes back to taxation. Teacher tenures are possible because all their monies are from your tax. And you are not legally allowed to stop paying your taxes to them. And if you dare propose a tax reduction for next year, then they threaten you with closing their kindergarten services, slashing 10 % down the sales value of your property. A vicious circle. Any ideas how to break it?

Tenure protects teachers from being fired for personal, political, or other non-work related reasons. Before tenure, teachers could be dismissed when a new political party took power or a principal wanted to make room to hire his friends.

The common complain about tenure is that it's difficult to fire poor performing teachers. That's true but my experience has been that all but the smallest school districts have ways of handling poor performing teachers. Really bad teachers are often the result of a wrong choice of career. Offering a non-instruction job sometimes works. In most districts if a principal wants get rid of you they can. There are always ways, transfers, rotations, and special jobs.

Having a situation in which districts fire teachers to lower taxes is a sure route to poorer educational performance.

Here is an example of how tenure works exactly like you said. In Florida, I was teacher for 8 years, had tenure and belonged to the union. When I received my Master's degree in Educational Leadership, my principal selected me to fill a vacant Assistant Principal role. About three months later, the principal's father passed away leaving him a $9 million estate, so he retired. The district hired a new principal to start the next school year who was pregnant with twins and had just recovered from a difficult pregnancy the year before that nearly killed her. She missed the vast majority of the school year, and we ran the school very well in her absence. When she finally returned, with about three months to go in the school year, she became very jealous of my reputation for enforcing discipline in the school with our district superiors.

Towards the end of school, I received an email from the district with the opportunities for promotion for the next school year. Guess whose name was on it as leaving? Me!

She didn't even have the guts to tell me that my contract was not being renewed. Later that afternoon, she sent me an email telling me I was no longer going to have a job there. She sent an email! She never spoke to me again the remainder of the school year and I worked until the end of June. The coop de grace was that she hired her best friend who was an administrator in a another school to take my place.

That is the kind of crap that teachers who do not have tenure still have to tolerate today!

The good news is that the remained of the staff saw what she did to me and she was removed at the end of the following school year.

 

[Flopper]

Unions this unions that. Lame excuse. It is duly noted there is no mention of kids having an ounce of responsibility. It's only the teachers. Always the teachers. And then it's the unions. What a bunch of complete garbage. Try again.

Taking responsibility is one of the most important lessons kids lean. However, when kids don't take responsibility and fail, it is the teacher that takes the blunt of the criticism. Today teachers and schools are rated based on student performance.

 

[Flopper]

...most colleges look at SAT and ACT scores, rather than your GPA. ...

WRONG.

So I just looked up the entrance requirements for local colleges. Not one mentioned high school GPA. All listed SAT and ACT.

If I am wrong, then I am wrong. I'll be more than happy to admit it. But I'm just looking at the evidence, and this is the conclusion it leads me too.

When I myself went to college, they never once looked at my GPA in high school. They asked about my SAT.

Again, I knew a guy in high school, that intentionally got the lowest passing score possible. He ended up being a lawyer. Do you think I'm making that up? For what purpose?

You guys have said I'm wrong, and I'm lying, and whatever now, for a dozen posts. I keep asking, what am I lying about, and what evidence do you have. At least tell me what you think I'm lying about, because at this point, you guys are just parroting each other, with no substance or evidence.

Work with me! Give me something to go on. What is your beef?

You're wrong about GPA's. Colleges certainly do look at them. The SAT can prove you have the capability to be successful. A high GPA proves you have been successful.

It's rare that a student will have a very low GPA and high SAT scores. However it does happens. The picture that paints for college admission officers or employers is a very smart slacker, not exactly and ideal candidate for college or a job.

 

[Flopper]

...most colleges look at SAT and ACT scores, rather than your GPA. ...

WRONG.

...

When I myself went to college, they never once looked at my GPA in high school. ....

Yes they did.

No, they did not. I asked. Said I only needed a diploma. Which I had. I know this because my GPA was horrendous. I was a terrible student. I was worried that my exceptionally low GPA would keep me out of college. They didn't care. They said they didn't care. They wanted to know my SAT scores.

When I went to college many years ago, the only thing you needed for admission to the state university was a high school diploma. I can assure you that is not the case today. However, admission to most community colleges only requires a diploma. If you're willing to pay enough money in tuition or willing to go to one of the worst 4 year schools in the country, they'll take you with a 2.0 or maybe even lower.

However, if you plan on using your degree to help you get a good job, you need go to at least a fairly well recognized school and not a degree mill or you may find you just wasted your money.

 

[anotherlife]

Not only Finland, but this has been the system all over east Europe too, including the former Soviet Union. It is the case too here in Africa. This may be very well the reason why as many as 24 countries do better in school than the USA.

Hey are all you guys reading this?? I'm not making this crap up! I've read about school systems all over the world. We are the only moronic school system that promotes people regardless of their GPA. We're the only system in the world that has a no-child-left-behind-no-matter-how-they-do idiotic ideology.

Maybe but I think Great Britain is even stupider. The other year, They suddenly changed the high school diploma test which is nationalized in that country. But they didn't print any study books or exercise materials, nor did they notify teachers about it. So the GPA of the entire country fell by like 1.9 suddenly in that year. So America is not the stupidest of all.

 

[anotherlife]

I think the major difference between professional people in business and teachers is the opportunity of advancement. Most people that go into teaching give up the idea that they will every advance past the classroom. If you are lucky, you might become a department head with a small increase in pay and a lot of additional work plus teaching. Over half the teachers that remain in education retire as teachers. The opportunity for advance is slim at best. You don't get to be a principle without at least a Masters degree and if you hope to move up further you better plan on more education. Even with more education advancement is not likely. Unlike the business world, success does not equate to more money. Growth rates in education is relatively low compared to most businesses so you can't look forward to any end of year bonuses or major expansions. What you get in teaching as compensation is job security, a good retiremen. Without that it's just the satisfaction of teaching kids which grows pretty old after 20 years.

A friend of mine is retiring from teaching after 30 years. She has been an elementary teacher at the same school for 26 years in the same classroom. She loves teaching and loves kids. I have no doubt that she would continue teaching till the day she died but her health prevents it. The pay is immaterial. However, most teachers are not like this. They teach because they need a paycheck. If you want better education for your kids, you need to pay a salary that will attract better people. It's that simple.

How do you know that most teachers don't teach because they "love kids and love teaching"? How do you know most do it simply for the paycheck?

Where are your stats or your surveys on this...or are you just making crap up?

Is there anything wrong with doing your job for nothing but your paycheck only? It may be easier if you also like your job, but you don't have to, you just have to do it and do it to an acceptable quality.

And these are all supposedly conservative republican teachers.

Until it comes to their collective bargaining power and job protections. Most of the teachers I know don’t like being treated like an employee who could lose their job if the school doesn’t want them there anymore. For whatever reason.

Welcome to the world the rest of us live in. We have no job security, no pensions, no collective bargaining and we can and do get fired. Teachers have to do something horrible to be fired. Tenure

The problem goes back to taxation. Teacher tenures are possible because all their monies are from your tax. And you are not legally allowed to stop paying your taxes to them. And if you dare propose a tax reduction for next year, then they threaten you with closing their kindergarten services, slashing 10 % down the sales value of your property. A vicious circle. Any ideas how to break it?

Having a situation in which districts fire teachers to lower taxes is a sure route to poorer educational performance.

The more sources of income for a school district the better. Common sources are property taxes, sales taxes, federal funds, and fees. Changing allocation between property taxes and sales is difficult. Federal funds are for specific projects such free and reduce lunches but there are always funds available for various new instructional programs. Encouraging more federal grant writing might help a bit. Then there are fees. Depending on state laws, school districts can levy fees for all kinds of services which can raise quite a bit of money. These fees can be student fee and fees charged to other districts or private schools for district services. The right person as director of finance or superintendent of finance can make a big difference.

The problem is that 90 % of all those monies never reach the school, but only bypass the school and go to teacher pensions instead of the school. Therefore the taxation element needs to be eliminated. That is the only part that is dominant because that is a guaranteed cash. As long as schools can levy taxes, they don't have to perform. If the tax based income is migrated to be fee based, then the teacher unions no longer have their hegemonic totalitarian power.

 

[Andylusion]

...most colleges look at SAT and ACT scores, rather than your GPA. ...

WRONG.

So I just looked up the entrance requirements for local colleges. Not one mentioned high school GPA. All listed SAT and ACT.

If I am wrong, then I am wrong. I'll be more than happy to admit it. But I'm just looking at the evidence, and this is the conclusion it leads me too.

When I myself went to college, they never once looked at my GPA in high school. They asked about my SAT.

Again, I knew a guy in high school, that intentionally got the lowest passing score possible. He ended up being a lawyer. Do you think I'm making that up? For what purpose?

You guys have said I'm wrong, and I'm lying, and whatever now, for a dozen posts. I keep asking, what am I lying about, and what evidence do you have. At least tell me what you think I'm lying about, because at this point, you guys are just parroting each other, with no substance or evidence.

Work with me! Give me something to go on. What is your beef?

You're wrong about GPA's. Colleges certainly do look at them. The SAT can prove you have the capability to be successful. A high GPA proves you have been successful.

It's rare that a student will have a very low GPA and high SAT scores. However it does happens. The picture that paints for college admission officers or employers is a very smart slacker, not exactly and ideal candidate for college or a job.

Obviously some high end universities look at them. Any Ivy league school, that has 4 to 6 applicants for each of the limited number of open seats... will obviously have to have additional requirements if for no other reason than because they need a way to thin the herd.

But when I'm discussion "education" in general, the vast vast majority of the roughly 3.5 Million high school grads a year, are not going to any of those elite schools with tough entrance standards.

Just like there are extremely high end companies, that have 50 applicants per open position, and then they might look at your high school record, simply to thin the herd.

But again, the vast majority of job applicants are not going to those employers.

So if what you said was true, why did the USA Today article that interviewed college admissions staff, say they don't look at GPA? Why did the admission office where I went to college, specifically say they didn't look at GPA?

I have theory. I'll just throw this out there. Keep in mind, it's just a theory. I have nothing to back this view but my own personal experience.

Because public schools are obligated to have an extremely wide range of academic outcomes within the school... and because there is a wide range of academic requirements between schools.... a GPA for one student can be completely different from the GPA of another student. Meaning, even if the two students have an identical GPA, it can mean entirely different things.

For example:

For a short time while I was in 11th grade, I was taking a bus ride with a group of students going to a private school. They were freshmen. One day on the bus, I happen to overhear some of the students talking about their homework, and I asked to see it. They were learning in 9th grade, what I was learning in 11th grade.

If we assumed that me, and that other student, were both earning a 4.0 GPA, you can understand that my 4.0 would not mean that I was on the same level as their 4.0. They were 2 full years ahead of me. And ironically I went to the highest rated high school in the Columbus area at that time. Meaning they were likely 5 years ahead of Columbus public.

Equally, even within the same school building, there are vastly different requirements. I was horrifically bad at math. I went to a class that was for people who were terrible at math, and scored an A+. But my A+ was not the same as an A+ from the normal Math course, nor is that the same as the Advance Placement Math course, and that wasn't the same as the College Credit Math course. There were 4 different tracts of courses you could take for Math.

If I showed off my straight As to the valedictorian, we both would laughed. He was doing college level math, while I was doing entry level math. But looking at GPA alone, I was A+, and he was A+.

That same A+, didn't mean the same education, to all the students.

So my guess is that this is why colleges don't look at GPA that much.

 

[Andylusion]

Not only Finland, but this has been the system all over east Europe too, including the former Soviet Union. It is the case too here in Africa. This may be very well the reason why as many as 24 countries do better in school than the USA.

Hey are all you guys reading this?? I'm not making this crap up! I've read about school systems all over the world. We are the only moronic school system that promotes people regardless of their GPA. We're the only system in the world that has a no-child-left-behind-no-matter-how-they-do idiotic ideology.

Maybe but I think Great Britain is even stupider. The other year, They suddenly changed the high school diploma test which is nationalized in that country. But they didn't print any study books or exercise materials, nor did they notify teachers about it. So the GPA of the entire country fell by like 1.9 suddenly in that year. So America is not the stupidest of all.

Well... yeah, but if we have government controlled education, what happened there, will happen here.