Thread: How much should public school teachers make?

Originally Posted by wooyarn

That's simply not true. My oldest sister taught High School for 25 years and seldom left the school before 4pm then still had papers to grade at home and things to get ready for the next day. Then there's summer school. Teachers work more then people give them credit for. But, anyone that has really taught any classes would know that.

I know plenty of people who have taught school. And I have taught in a college. Those were my hours except on clinical days which were 9 hour days twice a week. All the teachers I know gripe about how hard they work, but they do less than anyone I know. This is America. They can always do something else if they don't make enough money.

Originally Posted by Sunshine

... This is America. They can always do something else if they don't make enough money.

True. But that isn't the issue in Wisconsin, is it. Pay and benefits are not the issue. So why are you making it the issue?

Originally Posted by Dick Martin

True. But that isn't the issue in Wisconsin, is it. Pay and benefits are not the issue. So why are you making it the issue?

Because of the title of this thread and the issue presented in the opening post by the initiator of this thread:

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

Since there has been so much talk about school teachers and how much they make, how much do you think they should make?

I scaled it to household income since that should vary in proportion to cost of living for different geographical areas.


As an added question, but not part of the poll, how many students do you think a school teacher should have in their classroom? My son's 3rd grade teacher has 28 students this year, which seems a bit ridiculous. I think ~20 kids is more of a reasonable number.

Here's a list of household income by state:
List of U.S. states by income - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The highest state is $79k and the lowest is $36k.

Yes, how much do you think they should make? You've posted a half-dozen times in this thread and completely failed to answer the question.

Originally Posted by Sunshine

They can piss and moan all they want. They work 9 months out of the year, get off at 2:30 every day, have state benefits and insurance.

America is still a place of opportunity. If they don't like their life, they can go into another line of work. I can assure you someone will step up the get perks of teaching.

So you've drank the kool-Ade and actually believe this utter nonsense. According to you, teachers seem just like nurses that make far too much, always blame the doctor when something bad happens, never have to go back to school and are complicit in the 185,000 to 250,000 iatrogenic deaths in the USA each year.

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

Yes, how much do you think they should make? You've posted a half-dozen times in this thread and completely failed to answer the question.

I think they should all be fired, tenure done away with, and start completely over. What they earn should be tied to the performance of their students. And even THAT is giving them an edge because some students will do well regardless who teaches them.

The rightwingers and teacher-haters don't want to ever SAY how much teachers should be paid, they apparently only want to incessantly complain that teachers are overpaid greedy lazy leeches sucking off the taxpayer teat. Yet, they are doing a tangible job, so there must be some amount that teachers SHOULD be paid on average. What is that value? Why is it so hard for anyone to identify the rough amount?

From everything Fox and its talking heads mention, they're paid way too much. So what is the proper amount?

Originally Posted by Sunshine

I think they should all be fired, tenure done away with, and start completely over. What they earn should be tied to the performance of their students. And even THAT is giving them an edge because some students will do well regardless who teaches them.

Ok, so what should their starting amount be on day 1 when they haven't yet started? You can't tell someone to work for a year and tell them you'll decide what their pay is at the end of the year.

Also, for students who clearly have learning deficiencies (generally tied to poverty), do you think teachers should therefore only earn a tiny fraction of a living wage because their students have been screwed up for years and years and a teacher is supposed to wave a magic wand and make it all better?

What if nurses only got paid according to the survival rate of their patients? Would any nurse ever work in a hospice setting?

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

The rightwingers and teacher-haters don't want to ever SAY how much teachers should be paid, they apparently only want to incessantly complain that teachers are overpaid greedy lazy leeches sucking off the taxpayer teat. Yet, they are doing a tangible job, so there must be some amount that teachers SHOULD be paid on average. What is that value? Why is it so hard for anyone to identify the rough amount?

From everything Fox and its talking heads mention, they're paid way too much. So what is the proper amount?

Why did you make their pay contingent upon what others who are not teachers in the community make? If what I made was based on the average income of my community, which is a retirement area, I wouldn't even bother to get up and go to work.

I had a different course of study than teachers had in college. It was considerably more difficult and time consuming. My lab times were credited 3:1. (3 hours of lab 1 hour of credit.) Theirs were 1:1. I had upper level science classes they had the football science classes, unless they were going to be science and math teachers. There is nothing they do that should hinge upon what I earn. My earnings don't hinge upon the pay scale of my patients.

Originally Posted by Sunshine

Why did you make their pay contingent upon what others who are not teachers in the community make? If what I made was based on the average income of my community, which is a retirement area, I wouldn't even bother to get up and go to work.

You've finally said their pay should be scaled to how much their students improve. So you'd take their pay from $1,000 per year to $1001 per year? Or from $50,000 per year to $150,000 per year?

Reality still exists, people still need to earn a living wage. A living wage in Uganda is not a living wage in the US. A living wage in Mississippi is not a living wage in Maryland. What is the living wage you propose for teachers? What if a teacher demonstrates year-after-year the most improved students out of a school district with thousands of teachers? How much should she make? How much should the average ones make?

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

You've finally said their pay should be scaled to how much their students improve. So you'd take their pay from $1,000 per year to $1001 per year? Or from $50,000 per year to $150,000 per year?

Reality still exists, people still need to earn a living wage. A living wage in Uganda is not a living wage in the US. A living wage in Mississippi is not a living wage in Maryland. What is the living wage you propose for teachers? What if a teacher demonstrates year-after-year the most improved students out of a school district with thousands of teachers? How much should she make? How much should the average ones make?

You seem to assume that all teachers are women.

"Other" - why should any teachers salary be based on any other groups "average household income?"

Originally Posted by Sunshine

You seem to assume that all teachers are women.

Women represents almost 49% of the workforce, but 75% of teachers.