Thread: How much should public school teachers make?

To try and compare a teacher's salary to a two income family salary is apples to oranges. You'd have to compare two teacher's to a dual income family.

Originally Posted by pramjockey

So, based on teaching to the test, then?

I'd settle for that at this point. Like I said before, the HS grads that I have interviewed do not have even the most basic math skills, among other shortcomings.

I wish they could devise a way to teach common sense too , but I think that is quite impossible.

Originally Posted by chassisman

I'd settle for that at this point. Like I said before, the HS grads that I have interviewed do not have even the most basic math skills, among other shortcomings.

I wish they could devise a way to teach common sense too , but I think that is quite impossible.

It is terrifying what is coming out of some schools these days.

You know what's interesting? Best schools in the world - Finland. No standardized testing at all. Very strong teacher's union.

BBC News - World News America - Why do Finland's schools get the best results?

But, they also put more teachers in classrooms, not fewer. They support kids who are struggling, instead of singling them out. Until we as a nation decide to make these kinds of investments (instead of one carrier group), we'll always be 2nd or 3rd world as far as education goes.

Originally Posted by pramjockey

It is terrifying what is coming out of some schools these days.

You know what's interesting? Best schools in the world - Finland. No standardized testing at all. Very strong teacher's union.

BBC News - World News America - Why do Finland's schools get the best results?

But, they also put more teachers in classrooms, not fewer. They support kids who are struggling, instead of singling them out. Until we as a nation decide to make these kinds of investments (instead of one carrier group), we'll always be 2nd or 3rd world as far as education goes.

It's a bit foolish to compare us to Finland though.

Originally Posted by Donahue

It's a bit foolish to compare us to Finland though.

Why?

Why should we be doing anything but saying, "Finland, eat our educational dust?"

Originally Posted by pramjockey

1) teachers are more educated than most.

This is a poor argument, in my opinion. It might be true that teachers are more educated than the average employee but that seems more a tool used by unions to justify more compensation than a matter of actual necessity.

I don't really believe a MA in mathematics helps a kindergarten teacher do their job any better than it would help a greeter at Walmart do theirs. The obvious difference is the first grade teacher is paid for their additional education where the greeters isn't.

Originally Posted by pramjockey

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.

I recognize Disillusioned had this sort of response in mind when he started this topic and isn't actually looking for a sincere discussion but I don't think there's all that much truth to what you and the usual liberal suspects are suggesting.

This idea that anyone who opposes the teachers union is nothing but a child molesting fool who should be sodomized with a plunger might be politically advantageous, but I don't think there's very much to it.

As much as you guys keep insisting you want to talk about so-and-so, I don't think you can actually have a real conversation until you ease back on the partisanship a bit. People have a tendency to get inflamed about things but the liberals on USPOL take things to a new level.

Originally Posted by pramjockey

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

Obviously you're not factoring in expensive benefits packages and retirement plans which they're probably paying nothing into or the time off but that's probably reasonably true. The real question is if it's necessary to hire people with advanced degrees to teach first or second grade or are we requiring advanced degrees so it's easier to justify the compensation?

Originally Posted by Donahue

This is a poor argument, in my opinion. It might be true that teachers are more educated than the average employee but that seems more a tool used by unions to justify more compensation than a matter of actual necessity.

I don't really believe a MA in mathematics helps a kindergarten teacher do their job any better than it would help a greeter at Walmart do theirs. The obvious difference is the first grade teacher is paid for their additional education where the greeters isn't.

Well, the teacher has to pay for that degree. If you require a degree for a position, you have to expect to pay a premium for the education.

And does a Master's in Education help a kindergarten teacher do their job better? Absolutely. If they're getting a Master's in Mathematics, they're not teaching kindergarten.

I recognize Disillusioned had this sort of response in mind when he started this topic and isn't actually looking for a sincere discussion but I don't think there's all that much truth to what you and the usual liberal suspects are suggesting.

This idea that anyone who opposes the teachers union is nothing but a child molesting fool who should be sodomized with a plunger might be politically advantageous, but I don't think there's very much to it.

As much as you guys keep insisting you want to talk about so-and-so, I don't think you can actually have a real conversation until you ease back on the partisanship a bit. People have a tendency to get inflamed about things but the liberals on USPOL take things to a new level.

If you're going to bitch about partisanship, perhaps you shouldn't, you know, be such a partisan about it?

Obviously you're not factoring in expensive benefits packages and retirement plans which they're probably paying nothing into or the time off but that's probably reasonably true. The real question is if it's necessary to hire people with advanced degrees to teach first or second grade or are we requiring advanced degrees so it's easier to justify the compensation?

"Expensive benefits packages?" Please. The benefits that teachers get aren't better than in the private sector.

As far as requiring a degree to teach - yes, even first and second grade teachers are teaching. Some would argue (like psychologists and others with PhDs and beyond) that the fundamentals taught in the first few years of school are absolutely critical to the child's success in the rest of school. So, yeah, it's important that Johnny's 1st grade teacher be effective at teaching reading, writing, and basic arithmetic. Because if Johnny doesn't know how to read, write, and do basic addition and subtraction by the time he's out of 1st grade, he's pretty much hosed. It takes more than a high school diploma.

Originally Posted by pramjockey

Why?

Why should we be doing anything but saying, "Finland, eat our educational dust?"

For starters, the city I live in is roughly twice the size of their entire country.

I think our size and diversity is a bit more relevant than how strong their unions are. I certainly agree that we should be looking to improve on our educational system but comparing apples to cinder blocks doesn't seem like the best way to go about doing so.

Originally Posted by Donahue

For starters, the city I live in is roughly twice the size of their entire country.

Well, about half again as big.

I think our size and diversity is a bit more relevant than how strong their unions are. I certainly agree that we should be looking to improve on our educational system but comparing apples to cinder blocks doesn't seem like the best way to go about doing so.

So, you'd rather make excuses for why our education system should suck?


Disappointing.

Originally Posted by ConLib

To try and compare a teacher's salary to a two income family salary is apples to oranges. You'd have to compare two teacher's to a dual income family.

Or compare it to a single income earner who also has comparable education and responsibility.

However, data is most readily available region by region for average household income.

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

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.

She makes about 25% of her household income...

How would people feel about comparing teacher salaries to nursing salaries, since both usually require a college degree and both entail significant responsibility? The advantage is nursing salaries are also widely known and published.

Originally Posted by pramjockey

Honestly, I started responding to your post but realized it would just be lost on you knuckleheads. You, Dick Martin, ConLibs, Sardine, etc. just aren't worth responding to anymore, so I'll let you get back to describing how no conservative has a lick of sense and other nonsensically asinine insinuations.

Carry on, knucklehead.