Thread: How much should public school teachers make?

This really isn't a fair question. They should be paid whatever the market requires them to be paid, to retain good teachers. BUT...the gov't should not be used to unfairly (to the taxpayer) bargain against them (the taxpayers) for unfair benefits. AND...the gov't should not be used to unfairly support unions. AND....the gov't should not be used to support the ridiculous practice of tenure (tied to contracts), after an average (nationwide) of THREE YEARS.

I voted "other" because there wasn't an option for lower than the average household income. Since there are a large amount of households that are dual income I don't think it would be fair to pay them as much as two people working. Also, they don't put in a full year's worth of work and they get more holidays than anyone else would ever dream of getting. They get three months off a year so that's 9 months total, off the top. They get anywhere from 2-3 weeks off during the Christmas/New Year break. They get lots of days for every other holiday under the sun. They get sick days and the normal "holiday" days when they can take off whenever. So they are probably looking at close to 7 months of work.

Originally Posted by fishjoel

I voted "other" because there wasn't an option for lower than the average household income. Since there are a large amount of households that are dual income I don't think it would be fair to pay them as much as two people working. Also, they don't put in a full year's worth of work and they get more holidays than anyone else would ever dream of getting. They get three months off a year so that's 9 months total, off the top. They get anywhere from 2-3 weeks off during the Christmas/New Year break. They get lots of days for every other holiday under the sun. They get sick days and the normal "holiday" days when they can take off whenever. So they are probably looking at close to 7 months of work.

Agreed!!

Originally Posted by fishjoel

I voted "other" because there wasn't an option for lower than the average household income. Since there are a large amount of households that are dual income I don't think it would be fair to pay them as much as two people working. Also, they don't put in a full year's worth of work and they get more holidays than anyone else would ever dream of getting. They get three months off a year so that's 9 months total, off the top. They get anywhere from 2-3 weeks off during the Christmas/New Year break. They get lots of days for every other holiday under the sun. They get sick days and the normal "holiday" days when they can take off whenever. So they are probably looking at close to 7 months of work.

Youre generalizing of course. I have a band director friend who works year round and more than 40 hours a week. But you are right that each person needs to be paid according to their value, not according to whatever the union can wring out of the govt.

Originally Posted by fishjoel

I voted "other" because there wasn't an option for lower than the average household income. Since there are a large amount of households that are dual income I don't think it would be fair to pay them as much as two people working. Also, they don't put in a full year's worth of work and they get more holidays than anyone else would ever dream of getting. They get three months off a year so that's 9 months total, off the top. They get anywhere from 2-3 weeks off during the Christmas/New Year break. They get lots of days for every other holiday under the sun. They get sick days and the normal "holiday" days when they can take off whenever. So they are probably looking at close to 7 months of work.

fishjoel, that's why I put options for 75%, 50%, and 25% of household income. At 25% household income a teacher would be making approximately half of what one person of a dual-income family makes (1/4th of the average household), which would probably be below minimum wage in most locations.

100% of household income would mean that the teacher (who is usually college educated), makes what 2 income earners (of low education, low pay status) typically make, which is ~approximately the average household income for an area.

Most dual-income families will earn more than the average household income unless both breadwinners are fairly low paid or only work part-time.

Originally Posted by Steve

My sister-in-law is a 7th grade teacher in San Diego County. She makes about $52K a year. Her class size averages between 20 and 30 students; it fluctuates with each school year.

While her class may let out early to mid-afternoon, she's rarely home before 5:30pm and, then, it's not unusual for her to bring work home; tests to grade, stuff like that.

She's one of the better-paid teachers in the district. She's bilingual, and actually gets paid more because of that...

Not directing this to you Steve, just responding for people who don't get the poll. For the record, as a data point, the average income for San Diego county in 2008 was ~$62,800

San Diego County QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau

So if Steve's sis-in-law is one of the higher paid teachers, she is making ~83% of the average household income. That would mean that the average teacher in San Diego county is probably making around 75% of the average household income for that area.

The problem is the state aid system. School, and by proxy, teachers, are paid by butts in the seats, not results.

Separate funding by infrastructure (so that everyone has a stake in the process), and by tuition (direct pay to teachers), and parents will pay much closer attention to the educational process, and that makes all the difference.

Originally Posted by fishjoel

I voted "other" because there wasn't an option for lower than the average household income. Since there are a large amount of households that are dual income I don't think it would be fair to pay them as much as two people working. Also, they don't put in a full year's worth of work and they get more holidays than anyone else would ever dream of getting. They get three months off a year so that's 9 months total, off the top. They get anywhere from 2-3 weeks off during the Christmas/New Year break. They get lots of days for every other holiday under the sun. They get sick days and the normal "holiday" days when they can take off whenever. So they are probably looking at close to 7 months of work.

That is such a steaming pile of bullshit, FJ, I'm surprised you can see over it.

It's like saying that soldiers should get paid $50/year because they spend so much of their time sitting on their asses doing nothing. All that downtime, getting paid to sleep, getting paid to eat, getting paid to travel, getting paid to sit, getting paid to jerk off, getting paid to do anything but actual work.

It's bullshit and you know better.

As far as the poll goes - I don't think you should measure in regards to household income, for several reasons:

1) teachers are more educated than most.
2) teachers are single individuals and shouldn't be compared to household income.

I know that there are some really, really stupid conservatives who want to dismiss the vastly important role that teaching plays in society, and for the future success of business (hell, ask the businesses how important an educated workforce is to them). There are others who think that teachers are lazy and only work 3/4 of a job or less. Well, there are also conservatives who think the world is 6000 years old. None of them have a lick of sense. Investing in our education system (no, that doesn't mean throwing money) requires recognizing that we need better teachers, just like we needed to save all those CEOs who would have run away had we capped CEO pay for bailed-out financial firms (God forbid we do that, right cons?). Better teachers means that we need to provide incentives for the right people to come into teaching. People with science and mathematics degrees. People with real-world work experience. People with new ways of thinking and new insights into solving problems.

You aren't going to draw people with advanced degrees, insight, experience, and success with $25-30,000/year.

Originally Posted by pramjockey

As far as the poll goes - I don't think you should measure in regards to household income, for several reasons:

1) teachers are more educated than most.
2) teachers are single individuals and shouldn't be compared to household income.

Regarding (1), this is why it might be reasonable to pay teachers 100% of average household income because they ARE more educated and have a vital role to play in the future generation, hence, they should make more than what the average citizen makes - who is usually not college educated, etc.

Regarding (2), while its not ideal, its the best way I can think of to scale teacher income to the local area. A teacher in Maryland making $75k per year might not be overpaid, but a teacher making $75k per year in Montana would be. Ultimately it is local taxpayers that pay for schools, and therefore teacher income must be based upon the local economy. If a teacher is making 4x what everyone else around them makes, there's going to be a lot of pissed-off taxpayers. If a teacher makes 50% more than a ditch-digger, then its probably understandable since a teacher has more responsibility and a higher education level. Likewise, if a teacher is earning a quarter of what it costs to have a decent standard of living, teachers are going to be very very scarce in that geographical region. I think its natural that teacher incomes will roughly scale with average local household income, the question is what the multiplying coefficient should be.

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

Regarding (1), this is why it might be reasonable to pay teachers 100% of average household income because they ARE more educated and have a vital role to play in the future generation, hence, they should make more than what the average citizen makes - who is usually not college educated, etc.

Regarding (2), while its not ideal, its the best way I can think of to scale teacher income to the local area. A teacher in Maryland making $75k per year might not be overpaid, but a teacher making $75k per year in Montana would be. Ultimately it is local taxpayers that pay for schools, and therefore teacher income must be based upon the local economy. If a teacher is making 4x what everyone else around them makes, there's going to be a lot of pissed-off taxpayers. If a teacher makes 50% more than a ditch-digger, then its probably understandable since a teacher has more responsibility and a higher education level. Likewise, if a teacher is earning a quarter of what it costs to have a decent standard of living, teachers are going to be very very scarce in that geographical region. I think its natural that teacher incomes will roughly scale with average local household income, the question is what the multiplying coefficient should be.

I see where you're going - and you're right, it's extremely difficult to draw lines, especially with the extreme differences in cost of living across the country. With the way you just explained it it makes more sense (if you said this before and I missed it, I apologize).

I chose "other". Public shcool teachers should make a wage that is based on the school system that employs them's national academic ranking.

them's??? See, my teachers shouldn't have made much.

Originally Posted by chassisman

I chose "other". Public shcool teachers should make a wage that is based on the school system that employs them's national academic ranking.

them's??? See, my teachers shouldn't have made much.

So, based on teaching to the test, then?