Teachers Are OVERpaid

[s karlyle]

"Most people understand" is not a convincing argument for arguing about whether something is intellectually dishonest. Are intellectuals to be bound by conventional wisdom? Deferring to what "most people understand" is populism, not intellectualism.



No, it doesn't mean that I think teacher's pay is not great. It means I think their work is important enough to tolerate overpaying them more than other jobs. I think a lot of city administrators are overpaid too, but we need most of them less than we need teachers. We need bureaucrats, but we need them less and we need less of them, so it is more egregious that they are overpaid.

Also, part of my hesitation is because I am very sympathetic to teachers. they have a tough and important job and I've looked up to several of my teachers as mentors. But look at the burgeoning municipal and state debt in the US (and in the rest of the Western world). Much of it comes from what we pay public employees and especially from their pensions.

California has almost 200 billion in state debt and estimates of total state and local debt top one trillion dollars, while state tax revenue is just over $100 billion. (That number would obviously be higher if I included municipal tax revenue, but i don't have that number handy.) So part of the argument that public employees are overpaid is simply that the public cannot afford to pay for them.


It's not intellectually dishonest at all, because I continued to say that unlike most professions in the world it is extremely hard to weed out bad teachers. It is not hard to weed out bad accountants. So while it is true that any professions has those who are poor at it, it is not true that every profession is unable to weed out the worst performers, which was my obvious point.



Literally? Private school teachers get paid notably less on average and perform notably better on average. While I agree with the principle that better pay attracts better talent, that breaks down if you can't fire the bad teachers your high pay is sure to attract.



We will not suffer a teaching drought, as non-public schools have continued to thrive while paying teachers less.


No doubt the administration of the school districts is part of the problem, but there is equally no doubt that teacher quality is part of the problem in many public school districts.

You make some good points, but you also call several things intellectually dishonest simply because you disagree with them. I think you should practice recognizing valid arguments and distinguishing between validity and verity of claims before you take it on yourself to declare what is and isn't intellectually dishonest. Because if this post is representative, you aren't very good at it it.

Hmmm Can you offer a solution?

 

[s karlyle]

"Most people understand" is not a convincing argument for arguing about whether something is intellectually dishonest. Are intellectuals to be bound by conventional wisdom? Deferring to what "most people understand" is populism, not intellectualism.



No, it doesn't mean that I think teacher's pay is not great. It means I think their work is important enough to tolerate overpaying them more than other jobs. I think a lot of city administrators are overpaid too, but we need most of them less than we need teachers. We need bureaucrats, but we need them less and we need less of them, so it is more egregious that they are overpaid.

Also, part of my hesitation is because I am very sympathetic to teachers. they have a tough and important job and I've looked up to several of my teachers as mentors. But look at the burgeoning municipal and state debt in the US (and in the rest of the Western world). Much of it comes from what we pay public employees and especially from their pensions.

California has almost 200 billion in state debt and estimates of total state and local debt top one trillion dollars, while state tax revenue is just over $100 billion. (That number would obviously be higher if I included municipal tax revenue, but i don't have that number handy.) So part of the argument that public employees are overpaid is simply that the public cannot afford to pay for them.


It's not intellectually dishonest at all, because I continued to say that unlike most professions in the world it is extremely hard to weed out bad teachers. It is not hard to weed out bad accountants. So while it is true that any professions has those who are poor at it, it is not true that every profession is unable to weed out the worst performers, which was my obvious point.



Literally? Private school teachers get paid notably less on average and perform notably better on average. While I agree with the principle that better pay attracts better talent, that breaks down if you can't fire the bad teachers your high pay is sure to attract.



We will not suffer a teaching drought, as non-public schools have continued to thrive while paying teachers less.


No doubt the administration of the school districts is part of the problem, but there is equally no doubt that teacher quality is part of the problem in many public school districts.

You make some good points, but you also call several things intellectually dishonest simply because you disagree with them. I think you should practice recognizing valid arguments and distinguishing between validity and verity of claims before you take it on yourself to declare what is and isn't intellectually dishonest. Because if this post is representative, you aren't very good at it it.

Also I call them intellectually dishonest because they are... And I will agree to disagree with a lot of your reply but again can you offer a solution since your understand the problem so well?

 

[s karlyle]

"Most people understand" is not a convincing argument for arguing about whether something is intellectually dishonest. Are intellectuals to be bound by conventional wisdom? Deferring to what "most people understand" is populism, not intellectualism.



No, it doesn't mean that I think teacher's pay is not great. It means I think their work is important enough to tolerate overpaying them more than other jobs. I think a lot of city administrators are overpaid too, but we need most of them less than we need teachers. We need bureaucrats, but we need them less and we need less of them, so it is more egregious that they are overpaid.

Also, part of my hesitation is because I am very sympathetic to teachers. they have a tough and important job and I've looked up to several of my teachers as mentors. But look at the burgeoning municipal and state debt in the US (and in the rest of the Western world). Much of it comes from what we pay public employees and especially from their pensions.

California has almost 200 billion in state debt and estimates of total state and local debt top one trillion dollars, while state tax revenue is just over $100 billion. (That number would obviously be higher if I included municipal tax revenue, but i don't have that number handy.) So part of the argument that public employees are overpaid is simply that the public cannot afford to pay for them.


It's not intellectually dishonest at all, because I continued to say that unlike most professions in the world it is extremely hard to weed out bad teachers. It is not hard to weed out bad accountants. So while it is true that any professions has those who are poor at it, it is not true that every profession is unable to weed out the worst performers, which was my obvious point.



Literally? Private school teachers get paid notably less on average and perform notably better on average. While I agree with the principle that better pay attracts better talent, that breaks down if you can't fire the bad teachers your high pay is sure to attract.



We will not suffer a teaching drought, as non-public schools have continued to thrive while paying teachers less.


No doubt the administration of the school districts is part of the problem, but there is equally no doubt that teacher quality is part of the problem in many public school districts.

You make some good points, but you also call several things intellectually dishonest simply because you disagree with them. I think you should practice recognizing valid arguments and distinguishing between validity and verity of claims before you take it on yourself to declare what is and isn't intellectually dishonest. Because if this post is representative, you aren't very good at it it.

And Im gonna go ahead and shut this down right now.... NBA players are over paid reality stars are over paid hell you could even say doctors are over paid. Teachers do not fit the description.

Show me a person living in a mansion from teaching driving Maserati that takes vacations on their yacht and I will admit I was wrong

 

[Lord_Impaler]

The salary of a teacher varies enormously between school districts.

My wife is a teacher, her starting salary was like 55,000$, and she'll end up well over 100,000$ by the end of her career, plus the best health insurance and a pension.

My wife's friend is a teacher also, she works like 5 towns over, and she started at like 35,000$.

Both public elementary education, same state and close proximity.

 

[s karlyle]

The salary of a teacher varies enormously between school districts.

My wife is a teacher, her starting salary was like 55,000$, and she'll end up well over 100,000$ by the end of her career, plus the best health insurance and a pension.

My wife's friend is a teacher also, she works like 5 towns over, and she started at like 35,000$.

Both public elementary education, same state and close proximity.

Would you say teachers are generally over paid?

 

[Lord_Impaler]

Would you say teachers are generally over paid?

It's a hard question to answer.

If you start from the premise that it's an extremely important job, which I think is reasonable, it would then follow that they should be paid well.


As it stands, at least in my area, the richer the town the better the salary, because of the difference in property tax rates I think.

 

[nefti]

It's not the teachers it's the incompetent Middle and upper management in the school systems/union bosses that make 6 figures.

 

[bufetadanacara]

Public schools?

Yes, both work in public schools.

 

[Goonerview]

Privatise education and they will get paid their worth.

 

[ehtheist]

Then increase standards. Don't talk about them being overpaid when it's already hard enough for us to get good teachers because the states pay ass.

And lol @ "victim complex". You're in here crying about them not having to work summers and having benefits when they probably work 90 hours a week when you consider grading, lesson plans, long term planning, and workshops.

People like you are the reason we have a dearth of good teachers, don't get it twisted.

To be fair, while in this particular case it's definitely the OP playing that card and not you, you are one of this forum's perennial victims. And yes yes, obsession noted, dick in mouth, etc etc.

 

[Goonerview]

It's not the teachers it's the incompetent Middle and upper management in the school systems/union bosses that make 6 figures.

They should privatise education and stop subsidising these losers then

 

[Buck Swope]

I think they deserve what they get paid having to deal with those kids and parents today.

And they can't even paddle the kids and the principals even make teachers change the grades if the kid earns a bad grade. I wouldn't want to deal with the parents either.

If they bring back paddling, then it might be worth it, Cause then you could keep the kids in line easier if they know Mr Ripskater will open up a can of whoop ass.

Lay a fucking hand on my kid and we would go round and round.

And what do you know about kids today outside of your bubble?

Sorry RIP but you have really been pissing me off lately.

 

[Buck Swope]

They should privatise education and stop subsidising these losers then

So poor kids don't get an education? Are you fucking serious?

Higher education benefits society greatly.

 

[ripskater]

And what do you know about kids today outside of your bubble?

I know that in general that with kids there is less discipline than there was.

I also know that when I was a kid, the teachers still had the nuclear option on the table. And that was a spanking. And we didn't want it to come to that. Today, you've got youtube videos of the students beating down the teachers.

 

[Buck Swope]

I know that in general that with kids there is less discipline than there was.

I also know that when I was a kid, the teachers still had the nuclear option on the table. And that was a spanking. And we didn't want it to come to that. Today, you've got youtube videos of the students beating down the teachers.

My mother quit teaching after 30 years because of lack of discipline. It wasn't the lack of "the rod", it was the lack of will by the higher ups to follow through with punishment. They were scared of being sued.

Damn, RIP, I kind of proved your point.

 

[Jkillah]

That's not tenure, it's ineffective administration.

It is a misconception that tenure means a teacher can't be fired. It just means that, unless a teacher breaks a law, there are procedures that have to be followed.

It is an administration's job to effectively evaluate their staff and take action to remove underperforming teachers when necessary.

My mom is a teacher. She has said that it is really difficult to fire a tenured teacher that is under performing. It is a long process to fire one once they become tenured. It's not just a matter of filling out a lot of paperwork, you have to put them on an improvement plan and offer to retrain them. My mom is against tenure because it protects lazy teachers. She often inherits the kids who had a lazy teacher the year before, and it is a constant aggravation for her. The kids show up to her classroom below grade level and without any discipline. She has to bring them up to speed.

My mom has complained about her pay before, but I think she is paid fairly given she leaves school between 3:30 and 4:00 every day, has a lot of holidays, and will be able to retire several years sooner than people in the private sector. When I was growing up, she did take work home occasionally, especially around report card time. It was not a terrible amount though. My dad worked much harder and for longer hours in his job at the chemical plant.

I considered being a teacher myself because it seemed like an interesting profession with a lot of benefits. If I had a higher tolerance if ill behaved children I likely would have been a teacher.

 

[Swing]

My cousin lives in Florida. He went to school for Civil Engineering. After college he couldn't find a job in that field, so he applied at the high school he went to for a position as math teacher and got hired.

You can teach high school math with an engineering degree. But you can't teach dual enrollment without a masters, although technically I think you only need 15 postgraduate math credits and your master's can be in whatever.

 

[ineverpost]

Depends on the city and union. A lot of teachers make shitty 40,000-50,000 wages. That is shit when you consider how much it costs the average person to go get a degree in education.

The problem is the pension system in many areas. It's mathematically impossible to remain feasible. One thing I think needs to be mandated is that to receive your pension, you need to remain in the area you are receiving it from or lose it. Most people retire, and take their money to Florida or somewhere else.

 

[luckyshot]

My mom is a teacher. She has said that it is really difficult to fire a tenured teacher that is under performing. It is a long process to fire one once they become tenured. It's not just a matter of filling out a lot of paperwork, you have to put them on an improvement plan and offer to retrain them. My mom is against tenure because it protects lazy teachers. She often inherits the kids who had a lazy teacher the year before, and it is a constant aggravation for her. The kids show up to her classroom below grade level and without any discipline. She has to bring them up to speed.

My mom has complained about her pay before, but I think she is paid fairly given she leaves school between 3:30 and 4:00 every day, has a lot of holidays, and will be able to retire several years sooner than people in the private sector. When I was growing up, she did take work home occasionally, especially around report card time. It was not a terrible amount though. My dad worked much harder and for longer hours in his job at the chemical plant.

I considered being a teacher myself because it seemed like an interesting profession with a lot of benefits. If I had a higher tolerance if ill behaved children I likely would have been a teacher.

There is a process to fire underperforming teachers with tenure, yes.

Basically, an administrator has to tell a teacher why he feels she is underperforming, establish a metric of improvement, and offer some coaching or training to that teacher. If the administrator does this and the teacher doesn't improve, they can be fired.

It's not an unreasonable process given the somewhat subjective nature of "good" teaching. The thing is, it makes more work for the administrators, and they have to be willing to rock the boat.

So, tenure isn't really the problem; administrative inertia is.

Also, remember that a teacher can be let go at will before he or she has tenure. That means the administration gets a four or five year test drive to decide if a teacher has "it" or not. Lots of underperforming teachers ARE let go within a year or two with no tenure process to protect them. I know a music teacher who was let go after one year and simply told, "You were OK, but we are looking for someone great." I also know several certified teachers who have gone years without being able to find jobs because they don't interview well and/or didn't get great recommendations as student teachers. Despite common misconceptions, not just any idiot can become a tenured teacher-- not in a decent district at least.

 

[Alphafail]

The responses on this thread restored my faith in humanity a little bit. In the War Room of all places lol.