Why teachers need more pay

[Marion Morrison]

Nothing taxpayer-funded should have a union, ever.

interesting....~S~

And correct.

well, i'd ask what your validation may be MM.....~S~

Because it's counter-intuitive. The more money government workers make, the more of a drain it is on society.

Government does not produce anything, it just leeches off of taxpayers.

 

[sparky]

I just don’t understand what you mean. They’ll be paying you more than they make for your services? What does that mean?

I contract to lots of sorts that have an elitist view of those that work in the physical world , it's all beneath them

after all, they've spent $$$$$$ on an education.....

they're blinded by blatantly condesending socio-economic views

makes them easy pickin's , which they'll even thank us for

~S~

 

[sparky]

Nothing taxpayer-funded should have a union, ever.

interesting....~S~

And correct.

well, i'd ask what your validation may be MM.....~S~

Because it's counter-intuitive. The more money government workers make, the more of a drain it is on society.

Government does not produce anything, it just leeches off of taxpayers.

So, it can all be viewed socilaism , ergo unworthy of collectivist order?

~S~

 

[sealybobo]

I just don’t understand what you mean. They’ll be paying you more than they make for your services? What does that mean?

I contract to lots of sorts that have an elitist view of those that work in the physical world , it's all beneath them

after all, they've spent $$$$$$ on an education.....

they're blinded by blatantly condesending socio-economic views

makes them easy pickin's , which they'll even thank us for

~S~

Yea well we came from nothing and our kids are well grounded but I do agree a lot of those spoiled kids will grow up to be major disappointments.

It costs $25k a year to go to Cranbrook. I would expect great things from them. If they became nurses and teachers I’d be disappointed.

My nephew wants to work in the front office of the tigers pistons lions or red wings. He’s got a good head on his shoulders.

And his parents will leave him millions so he should be ok.

And he doesn’t have to pay for college so while your kids are paying off their student loans he’ll be saving for his first home

 

[Marion Morrison]

Nothing taxpayer-funded should have a union, ever.

interesting....~S~

And correct.

well, i'd ask what your validation may be MM.....~S~

Because it's counter-intuitive. The more money government workers make, the more of a drain it is on society.

Government does not produce anything, it just leeches off of taxpayers.

So, it can all be viewed socilaism , ergo unworthy of collectivist order?

~S~

Did I say that? No, you did.

 

[sealybobo]

I just don’t understand what you mean. They’ll be paying you more than they make for your services? What does that mean?

I contract to lots of sorts that have an elitist view of those that work in the physical world , it's all beneath them

after all, they've spent $$$$$$ on an education.....

they're blinded by blatantly condesending socio-economic views

makes them easy pickin's , which they'll even thank us for

~S~

Look at where most VPs and CEOs went to school. Expensive private schools. Colleges like Harvard and Yale recruit from those schools not public schools.

Are some rich kids spoiled brats? Sure

 

[sparky]

And he doesn’t have to pay for college so while your kids are paying off their student loans he’ll be saving for his first home

Blues aren't saddled with student debts sealy....

And his parents will leave him millions so he should be ok.

and we luuurrrve trustifarians.....

~S~

 

[sparky]

Are some rich kids spoiled brats? Sure

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

a Master's degree in Educational Leadership where we studied the educational systems nationwide.

That's part of the system, cynical as it is. It's the uniformitarian, totalitarian, communist dictatorahip-of-the-proletariat approach to education in America.

School boards (as elected) don't have have any real power, and certainly not to buck the union. It's the multitude of mandatory committee-driven "norms" and "standards" that have somehow acquired the force of federal law even though they were never passed by Congress.

The real power is in those national conferences and conventions that educators with degrees such as yours attend when they are invited.

Administrators are NOT represented by the teachers unions ANYWHERE!

Probably not when you're their direct supervisor, although I tend to think of "administrators" as secretaries and office assistants who do not necessarily outrank teachers.

Even so, you are right in that it is the teachers themselves who band together, unionize, and politicize directly with parents who happen to be constituents. There's a school bond issue on the ballot. It's a must-pass because the teachers need a raise. And guess who's counting the ballots at the local election polling place which just happens to be the local elementary or middle school.

A veritable political perpetual motion machine.

This entire post simply shows you have absolutely no clue as to what you are discussing. You are the consummate dumbass!

If you think "administrators" are secretaries and office assistants and think they are overpaid, you are wrong on both counts. They are also not represented by the teacher's union. That makes you three for three on being WRONG!

Why do you dare pontificate on shit you know absolutely nothing about?

Go back and play with your blocks and let the adults have a discussion.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Yeah, gotta agree with Mr H on this one.

Regardless of how you feel about unions, the public school unions have made a mess of shit. With a job as important as educating our youngest generation, why would we want our educators given consideration of anything -but- performance?

Why would we allow them to base employment decisions on seniority?

Also, you look at how the basic union dynamic works. The union negotiates with the employer to get higher pay, more benefits, and less requirements for the workers they represent. The employer concedes what is required to continue to operate, and the difference is passed onto the consumers.

Public school unions are no different. They aren't representing the children, they're representing the teachers and administrators. They fight to get higher pay and lower expectations for the educators and the consumers are the ones that have to eat the cost. In this case the consumers are the taxpayers and the kids.

Now, in my view, most of our larger educational issues in this country are primarily cultural. It doesn't matter how much you improve the school system, when our popular culture idolizes ignorance and persecutes, as nerds and dorks, anyone with intellectual values and pass times, we're gonna end up with a lot of willfully ignorant dipshits.

That said. . . Ban union seniority rules in public schools and start demanding more accountability and see if shit doesn't improve. I don't know if you realize it, but upping the salary will only put better teachers in the classrooms if the shittier teachers are forced to move aside. With seniority, that latter requirement won't be met. You'll just be paying the current batch of fuck-ups more money to continue fucking up with impunity.

Also, whoever said that we should stop spending so much on the buildings, I also agree with. I wouldn't put the fault on the contractors, though. By definition, a business is looking to maximize its profits. They're just doing their jobs.

The problem is that we've given our government officials too much discretion in how much to blow on individual contracts and there's too little transparency to their spending decisions. Make it harder for criminal enterprises to buy off political contracts and, VOILA!, less criminal enterprises will buy off political contracts. You know why you've never seen a toilet seat in anyone's house that you know that cost 650 bucks? The same reason you've never seen a coffee maker in your friend's kitchen that cost 7 G's. Cuz regular people who have to spend their -own- money don't pay fucking 650 for a toilet seat or 7 G's for a fuckin coffee maker! Throwing money at a problem doesn't fix shit if the people responsible for distributing that money have the integrity and spending habits of meth addicts.

Nothing taxpayer-funded should have a union, ever.

I agree. And just like at my work none of us know what each other make.

So it’s up to you to go convince the principle that you are worth a raise. Don’t walk in with all your fellow teachers and demand you all get a raise. Most of you don’t deserve a raise. Especially the ones who are complaining how hard it is. Maybe it is too hard for you. More money isn’t going to make you better or the job easier.

Please don't comment on education topics until you learn to spell "principal".

 

[sealybobo]

We all work hard, and off the clock.

Do you get a pension after so many years of work or does the school put money into your savings retirement of 401k? Do you get summers off? That’s shit we don’t get.

There is really nothing to argue here--the market will work. And the market IS working. Teachers are deciding, in pretty big numbers that the job many of them adore is no longer worth the energy, effort, time, sweat, tears and etc. for the money they are being paid.

Good luck, America, replacing us with the money you are willing to pay. I mean that's it. Many on this board have already admitted it's Lord of the Flies for them--they will pay dearly for their own children's education; nothing at all for anyone else's.

So there we are. And the decay continues apace.

Actually I think we will still be able to find good teachers and you and my sister in law prove teachers will complain no matter how much we pay you.

My sister in law makes $70k, will get a pension and gets healthcare and summers off. She complains.

So some girl who graduates high school has to decide what she’s capable of doing. What will she do if not be a teacher? You act like teachers can just easily go do something else. If they could have why did they go into teaching?

Maybe they can be hair dressers but that doesn’t pay $50k and you don’t get summers off and no pension after 30 years. So you tell me what those women are going to do instead of teach.

Many of my colleagues have left teaching and gone into lucrative careers. ??? It seems that you're assuming "those women" are stupid. If they're stupid, I don't know--they shouldn't be teachers in the first place. But if they're not stupid, believe me, in this economy, there are places and people who will hire them.

Now I ask you: how do you expect to find smart, good teachers if those smart, good teachers can go into lucrative careers elsewhere, work much fewer hours year round even if they DO NOT get summers off, set their own bathroom breaks and schedules during the day, not have to grade papers and etc? Do not get me wrong, I adore teaching. I've been at this for 25 years. I just want to know how YOU propose to work this out.

Do tell us, Mr. Genius. Maybe these really smart, savvy women would love to work 12 hour days for 35K a year and buy school supplies for their students from that money and work second jobs for 30 years with dwindling pensions out of the goodness of their hearts--is that how you figure it?

They can’t go into lucrative careers. Teaching children doesn’t translate into the business world.

I know lawyers and engineers can go into business and find very lucrative jobs but I’m not sure what you think an English or history teacher is qualified to do?

What are some of these lucrative jobs you are talking about?

Companies are still only hiring people who have experience in the job in which they are being hired to do. That means companies aren’t hiring teachers to be accounting, hr, it, quality, sales, marketing, etc. you wouldn’t know what you were doing.

I know people who have done it in the state in which we live. Sales. Making bank.

I read this from a teacher on Reddit

Can we concede that teaching isn't REALLY the hardest thing in the world?

I'm a new teacher and I absolutely think that the job is insanely difficult and eats up tons of my free time, but I think it's important for us to stay grounded and realize that almost everyone works very hard and that there are MUCH more difficult jobs than teaching,

I used to have the same complaints: it sucks to take your work home with you, it sucks to lack support, why do I need to work with these BS standards, and most importantly, I wish I had a "normal" 9 to 5 job.

But the more people I meet, the more I realize how rare a 9 to 5 job actually is. My other friends all have extremely difficult jobs, and they lack many of the perks we have. My accountant friend works 60 hours a week actually in his office; at least we can take our work home. My engineer friend has projects to worry about every night and dedicates a lot of her free time to those. Every customer service job works with ungrateful/nasty people, and they need to act with the same respect/composure that we do. Even when I see people working in fast food/retail, I think "Wow, thank god I don't have to do that."

Additionally, I see so many perks compared to others. I teach middle school in a district that has half day professional developments every month, so between these, field trips, assemblies, snow days, holidays, and meetings, I VERY RARELY have to work 3 full weeks in a row. Even when I do, The school day is only 6 hours and I get a prep (most days) and a lunch totalling in an hour and a half. That's only 4.5 hours of real work a day (almost 4 hours if you count time lost to class transitions), not including testing days/projects in which I just help students who are the ones doing the most of the work.

I don't know how I expect this to go in a forum of teachers, but it's something I've been thinking about.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

My nephews go to the most expensive private school in Michigan and most of those kids are going to go off to Ivy League schools. Most of your kids will graduate to become blue collar workers.

sure....

the irony being your nephew and his ivy school buds will be paying us blues more than they make for our services

~S~

Huh?

Can U hear me laughing sealy?

~S~

I just don’t understand what you mean. They’ll be paying you more than they make for your services? What does that mean?

The kid my nephew brought to play basketball yesterday is going to play football at Harvard. My nephew is going to go to Michigan state university.

My nephew will make more than his teachers. If not what a waste of money

Really? The Michigan State football player is going to make back after he blows out his ACL and walks with a limp the rest of his life with a degree in sports medicine or general studies?

 

[sealybobo]

Yeah, gotta agree with Mr H on this one.

Regardless of how you feel about unions, the public school unions have made a mess of shit. With a job as important as educating our youngest generation, why would we want our educators given consideration of anything -but- performance?

Why would we allow them to base employment decisions on seniority?

Also, you look at how the basic union dynamic works. The union negotiates with the employer to get higher pay, more benefits, and less requirements for the workers they represent. The employer concedes what is required to continue to operate, and the difference is passed onto the consumers.

Public school unions are no different. They aren't representing the children, they're representing the teachers and administrators. They fight to get higher pay and lower expectations for the educators and the consumers are the ones that have to eat the cost. In this case the consumers are the taxpayers and the kids.

Now, in my view, most of our larger educational issues in this country are primarily cultural. It doesn't matter how much you improve the school system, when our popular culture idolizes ignorance and persecutes, as nerds and dorks, anyone with intellectual values and pass times, we're gonna end up with a lot of willfully ignorant dipshits.

That said. . . Ban union seniority rules in public schools and start demanding more accountability and see if shit doesn't improve. I don't know if you realize it, but upping the salary will only put better teachers in the classrooms if the shittier teachers are forced to move aside. With seniority, that latter requirement won't be met. You'll just be paying the current batch of fuck-ups more money to continue fucking up with impunity.

Also, whoever said that we should stop spending so much on the buildings, I also agree with. I wouldn't put the fault on the contractors, though. By definition, a business is looking to maximize its profits. They're just doing their jobs.

The problem is that we've given our government officials too much discretion in how much to blow on individual contracts and there's too little transparency to their spending decisions. Make it harder for criminal enterprises to buy off political contracts and, VOILA!, less criminal enterprises will buy off political contracts. You know why you've never seen a toilet seat in anyone's house that you know that cost 650 bucks? The same reason you've never seen a coffee maker in your friend's kitchen that cost 7 G's. Cuz regular people who have to spend their -own- money don't pay fucking 650 for a toilet seat or 7 G's for a fuckin coffee maker! Throwing money at a problem doesn't fix shit if the people responsible for distributing that money have the integrity and spending habits of meth addicts.

Nothing taxpayer-funded should have a union, ever.

I agree. And just like at my work none of us know what each other make.

So it’s up to you to go convince the principle that you are worth a raise. Don’t walk in with all your fellow teachers and demand you all get a raise. Most of you don’t deserve a raise. Especially the ones who are complaining how hard it is. Maybe it is too hard for you. More money isn’t going to make you better or the job easier.

Please don't comment on education topics until you learn to spell "principal".

This one was cute

Dear Teachers,
Please stop complaining about your "teacher salary". Some of us actually can't make ends meet on much less than your $60,000 salary.
Sincerely, I don't know how I'm going to pay for dinner tonight.

 

[sealybobo]

My nephews go to the most expensive private school in Michigan and most of those kids are going to go off to Ivy League schools. Most of your kids will graduate to become blue collar workers.

sure....

the irony being your nephew and his ivy school buds will be paying us blues more than they make for our services

~S~

Huh?

Can U hear me laughing sealy?

~S~

I just don’t understand what you mean. They’ll be paying you more than they make for your services? What does that mean?

The kid my nephew brought to play basketball yesterday is going to play football at Harvard. My nephew is going to go to Michigan state university.

My nephew will make more than his teachers. If not what a waste of money

Really? The Michigan State football player is going to make back after he blows out his ACL and walks with a limp the rest of his life with a degree in sports medicine or general studies?

What? My nephew doesn't play football his buddy does and he's going to Harvard. And yes, after he blows out his ACL he's going to limp into a 6 figure job in sports medicine. Is that hard to believe?

 

[sealybobo]

Yeah, gotta agree with Mr H on this one.

Regardless of how you feel about unions, the public school unions have made a mess of shit. With a job as important as educating our youngest generation, why would we want our educators given consideration of anything -but- performance?

Why would we allow them to base employment decisions on seniority?

Also, you look at how the basic union dynamic works. The union negotiates with the employer to get higher pay, more benefits, and less requirements for the workers they represent. The employer concedes what is required to continue to operate, and the difference is passed onto the consumers.

Public school unions are no different. They aren't representing the children, they're representing the teachers and administrators. They fight to get higher pay and lower expectations for the educators and the consumers are the ones that have to eat the cost. In this case the consumers are the taxpayers and the kids.

Now, in my view, most of our larger educational issues in this country are primarily cultural. It doesn't matter how much you improve the school system, when our popular culture idolizes ignorance and persecutes, as nerds and dorks, anyone with intellectual values and pass times, we're gonna end up with a lot of willfully ignorant dipshits.

That said. . . Ban union seniority rules in public schools and start demanding more accountability and see if shit doesn't improve. I don't know if you realize it, but upping the salary will only put better teachers in the classrooms if the shittier teachers are forced to move aside. With seniority, that latter requirement won't be met. You'll just be paying the current batch of fuck-ups more money to continue fucking up with impunity.

Also, whoever said that we should stop spending so much on the buildings, I also agree with. I wouldn't put the fault on the contractors, though. By definition, a business is looking to maximize its profits. They're just doing their jobs.

The problem is that we've given our government officials too much discretion in how much to blow on individual contracts and there's too little transparency to their spending decisions. Make it harder for criminal enterprises to buy off political contracts and, VOILA!, less criminal enterprises will buy off political contracts. You know why you've never seen a toilet seat in anyone's house that you know that cost 650 bucks? The same reason you've never seen a coffee maker in your friend's kitchen that cost 7 G's. Cuz regular people who have to spend their -own- money don't pay fucking 650 for a toilet seat or 7 G's for a fuckin coffee maker! Throwing money at a problem doesn't fix shit if the people responsible for distributing that money have the integrity and spending habits of meth addicts.

Nothing taxpayer-funded should have a union, ever.

I agree. And just like at my work none of us know what each other make.

So it’s up to you to go convince the principle that you are worth a raise. Don’t walk in with all your fellow teachers and demand you all get a raise. Most of you don’t deserve a raise. Especially the ones who are complaining how hard it is. Maybe it is too hard for you. More money isn’t going to make you better or the job easier.

Please don't comment on education topics until you learn to spell "principal".

18 Reasons Why Teachers Need To Stop Complaining About Being Underpaid

I found this on another message board. They were talking about

If being paid 17% more than the average North Carolinian for working 20% fewer hours isn’t a sweet enough deal, consider that the above only takes into account base salary—it does not include the rather generous teacher’s state benefits package, which includes zero-cost health insurance (with option to upgrade, see below), 11 paid holidays, a MINIMUM of 14 days (almost three weeks!) of paid annual leave per year, up to 8 days of paid sick leave per year, short- and long-term disability insurance, etc. For those who did the counting on paid leave, NC teachers get up to 33 days (and no fewer than 25 days) of paid absences ON TOP OF only working a 10-month year. I challenge anyone to find a remotely comparable benefits package in the private sector.

 

[DGS49]

A blanket statement that "teachers ought to be paid more," is obviously nonsense. Some teachers are well-compensated and some not. The teachers in my own public school district can make 6-figure salaries when they kick into the high range of the scale after a dozen years or so. Are the worth "more"? Probably not.

The point is that collective bargaining is NEVER appropriate in the public sector, and when applied to teachers, it is an abomination. Since most cogent observers, starting with FDR, realize that this is an abomination, many taxpayers are resentful of the wages, benefits, and retirement expense that they are compelled to pay as a result of this specific abomination.

To elaborate, collective bargaining is appropriate in very few situations, and only in the private sector. It is appropriate where there is a surplus of available workers who can do the work, or where skilled workers are simply not in a position to bargain individually for fair compensation. Basically, common labor and skilled trades.

In the public sector, on the other hand, the politicians in charge of the negotiations with the CBU have a vested interest in keeping the employees happy, and they are totally insulated from the costs of the wages and benefits to which they agree in the CBA. So if they pay "too much" or have overly generous benefits, or have incredibly unrealistic retirement provisions, "Who gives a shit?" The entity will not go bankrupt; it will just raise taxes to pay the cost.

With respect specifically to teachers unions, the teachers unions provide hundreds of millions of dollars in cash and in kind to support politicians who are generous to them at contract time, thus conspiring to fuck the taxpayers year after year. Successfully, in many cases.

A competent teacher is entitled to a substantial package of wages and benefits, even though they work a job that is, to be kind, somewhat less than full time. If I were emperor I would establish a national pay scale for teachers with local cost-of-living factors, and require every school district in the country to abide by it. In today's terms, a starting teacher would be paid about the same as a GS-5 and a "Master Teacher" as a GS-11, fill in the blanks. Let the locals figure out how to pay for it.

 

[sealybobo]

We all work hard, and off the clock.

Do you get a pension after so many years of work or does the school put money into your savings retirement of 401k? Do you get summers off? That’s shit we don’t get.

There is really nothing to argue here--the market will work. And the market IS working. Teachers are deciding, in pretty big numbers that the job many of them adore is no longer worth the energy, effort, time, sweat, tears and etc. for the money they are being paid.

Good luck, America, replacing us with the money you are willing to pay. I mean that's it. Many on this board have already admitted it's Lord of the Flies for them--they will pay dearly for their own children's education; nothing at all for anyone else's.

So there we are. And the decay continues apace.

Actually I think we will still be able to find good teachers and you and my sister in law prove teachers will complain no matter how much we pay you.

My sister in law makes $70k, will get a pension and gets healthcare and summers off. She complains.

So some girl who graduates high school has to decide what she’s capable of doing. What will she do if not be a teacher? You act like teachers can just easily go do something else. If they could have why did they go into teaching?

Maybe they can be hair dressers but that doesn’t pay $50k and you don’t get summers off and no pension after 30 years. So you tell me what those women are going to do instead of teach.

Many of my colleagues have left teaching and gone into lucrative careers. ??? It seems that you're assuming "those women" are stupid. If they're stupid, I don't know--they shouldn't be teachers in the first place. But if they're not stupid, believe me, in this economy, there are places and people who will hire them.

Now I ask you: how do you expect to find smart, good teachers if those smart, good teachers can go into lucrative careers elsewhere, work much fewer hours year round even if they DO NOT get summers off, set their own bathroom breaks and schedules during the day, not have to grade papers and etc? Do not get me wrong, I adore teaching. I've been at this for 25 years. I just want to know how YOU propose to work this out.

Do tell us, Mr. Genius. Maybe these really smart, savvy women would love to work 12 hour days for 35K a year and buy school supplies for their students from that money and work second jobs for 30 years with dwindling pensions out of the goodness of their hearts--is that how you figure it?

They can’t go into lucrative careers. Teaching children doesn’t translate into the business world.

I know lawyers and engineers can go into business and find very lucrative jobs but I’m not sure what you think an English or history teacher is qualified to do?

What are some of these lucrative jobs you are talking about?

Companies are still only hiring people who have experience in the job in which they are being hired to do. That means companies aren’t hiring teachers to be accounting, hr, it, quality, sales, marketing, etc. you wouldn’t know what you were doing.

I know people who have done it in the state in which we live. Sales. Making bank.

I think people are getting sick of teachers crying about how they are underpaid and overworked.

In recent years the internet has provided an undeniably wonderful platform for teachers to share advice, ideas and experiences. But it has also provided a soapbox for tireless negativity and tiresome self-regard.

The corner of the staffroom where the moaners always congregate – elaborating on how much better things could be – has always been reassuringly easy to avoid. However, give these people a screen and a keyboard and they’ll exercise their thumbs until everyone’s as miserable as them.

Secret Teacher: we have one of the best jobs in the world, so stop moaning

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

A blanket statement that "teachers ought to be paid more," is obviously nonsense. Some teachers are well-compensated and some not. The teachers in my own public school district can make 6-figure salaries when they kick into the high range of the scale after a dozen years or so. Are the worth "more"? Probably not.

The point is that collective bargaining is NEVER appropriate in the public sector, and when applied to teachers, it is an abomination. Since most cogent observers, starting with FDR, realize that this is an abomination, many taxpayers are resentful of the wages, benefits, and retirement expense that they are compelled to pay as a result of this specific abomination.

To elaborate, collective bargaining is appropriate in very few situations, and only in the private sector. It is appropriate where there is a surplus of available workers who can do the work, or where skilled workers are simply not in a position to bargain individually for fair compensation. Basically, common labor and skilled trades.

In the public sector, on the other hand, the politicians in charge of the negotiations with the CBU have a vested interest in keeping the employees happy, and they are totally insulated from the costs of the wages and benefits to which they agree in the CBA. So if they pay "too much" or have overly generous benefits, or have incredibly unrealistic retirement provisions, "Who gives a shit?" The entity will not go bankrupt; it will just raise taxes to pay the cost.

With respect specifically to teachers unions, the teachers unions provide hundreds of millions of dollars in cash and in kind to support politicians who are generous to them at contract time, thus conspiring to fuck the taxpayers year after year. Successfully, in many cases.

A competent teacher is entitled to a substantial package of wages and benefits, even though they work a job that is, to be kind, somewhat less than full time. If I were emperor I would establish a national pay scale for teachers with local cost-of-living factors, and require every school district in the country to abide by it. In today's terms, a starting teacher would be paid about the same as a GS-5 and a "Master Teacher" as a GS-11, fill in the blanks. Let the locals figure out how to pay for it.

The largest problem with you education bashers is that what you spout is nothing but repeated talking points that are nothing but lie.

I was a teacher for 21 years. I was union member for about half of that time. Why, do you ask?

There is no almost no collective bargaining in education. You have it all wrong.

The school board says, "This is the pay scale for the new contract."

The union says, "Sir, may we have some more?"

The school board says, "No!"

End of discussion.

Most people do not realize that teachers often pay 100% of their retirement. How many others are stuck with that?

I worked many years paying my own retirement fund outside social security. Did you know that after 10 years I am no longer eligible for disability? Did you also know that my self-funded retirement will reduce those social security benefits I previously earned when I do retire permanently?

Those politicians receiving campaign contributions are not the same as those getting to decide on pay. Another assumption on your part that is simply false.

What exactly is a "Master Teacher". How will it be determined? You can't just throw terms out there without defining them.

How many GS-5 jobs require a degree? Answer: Not many. How many GS-5 jobs require a Master's degree? Answer: None.

Why do you suddenly want the federal government dictating to local school boards? I thought you education bashers all wanted to get rid of the Education Department. Which is it?

 

[Indeependent]

See teacher pay go up.
See teacher get fired.
See teacher collect unemployment.

If you get fired, you don't get unemployment.

In NY you do.
In NY it’s almost impossible for a teacher to be fired.
They have a Rubber Room where you spend the rest of your career chilling.

 

[sealybobo]

See teacher pay go up.
See teacher get fired.
See teacher collect unemployment.

If you get fired, you don't get unemployment.

In NY you do.
In NY it’s almost impossible for a teacher to be fired.
They have a Rubber Room where you spend the rest of your career chilling.

Can you think of one other profession who complains how hard their job is and how under paid they are? I can't think of one.

Police tell us how hard their job is but not that they are under paid.

Dentists apparently commit suicide at a high rate for some reason. But they don't complain about the money.

Nurses I think have a right to complain. They don't make enough. No one in the hospital or old folks home does other than the doctors and owners. If anything we need to give our caregivers more money.

Teachers make what they should make.

How Much Money Does an Average Teacher Make a Year? According to the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average annual salary for a teacher is approximately $55,000 per year. This means that half of all teachers in the country make more than this amount, and half make less.

Does anyone think public school teachers should make more? And I'm not asking public school teachers. Of course they think they should make more.

I'm sick of hearing how important their jobs are. My brother went off to MSU and got his masters. He almost failed out when he first went there. We went to a great public school where he was an A/B student. He wasn't prepared for college. He didn't know how to study. Our "great" public school in reality sucked. So today he pays $25K per kid to send them to private school. He said he succeeded DESPITE public school. His kids will go off to college and know how to study. BTW I almost failed out of college too. Public school teachers suck. Glorified baby sitters. They take credit for smart kids who would succeed regardless. I think they should be measured on the lowest performings tudents. We should be able to go look a their students 10 years later and see if they are successful.

And our public school was great compared to the Detroit Public School we came from. My 4th grade counselor in the white school we moved to said I basically learned nothing the first 4 years of school. So how much should a Detroit Public School teacher make? $40K a year at most. That's a lot of money for someone in Detroit and unfortunately the parents don't pay enough taxes to justify paying any more. If you don't like it, don't teach in Detroit or don't have kids in Detroit. Or send your kids to public school. If you can't afford that it's not our problem. You chose to have those kids.