Should the starting salary for a teacher be $60,000?

[Rainsford]

My thought is that if we're going to claim to be capitalists, we probably shouldn't expect teachers to just do a good job because they love doing it. Our whole society is pretty much based around the idea that paying people more attracts better people and gets them to do better work. Why in the world would we think teachers are/should be any different?

 

[mchammer187]

DP

 

[mchammer187]

i hope you are being sarcastic (my meter is due for recalibration). expenditures per student doesn't automatically mean teacher's salaries are higher. there are things like program subsidies, facilities costs, etc.

and of course in washington DC, with the highest expenditures per student, performance is incredibly poor.

True but the fact that parents of private school children are more likely to be concerned with their children's performance has a much higher influence than what teachers can do.

Sure a good teacher can save a few more students but a great teacher with good students is able to accomplish much more.

 

[alkemyst]

If money is not important why are CEOs of big companies paid so much?

They produce results, teachers produce mostly dregs of society.

The teacher gig used to be a great career 20+ years ago. Unfortunately like most of infrastructure, it is incapable of keeping up with inflation.

Another result of government overspending, but writing them Native Indian reparation checks each month is not the answer.

The problem is teachers constantly use the whole 'more than an eight hour day' arguement.

I don't know about all you guys, but it's been a LONG time since I have gotten by at expecting each day is going to be only eight hours. I also get a much lesser vacation / holiday package than teachers and their 'pension' fund is much more awesome at 3% compared to my simple 401k with a capped employer match.

As much as teachers bitch about their hours, everytime I am out (and lately that's been non-existant the last six months due to required study), there are always a bunch of teachers bitching about not having any free time. They were there when I arrived and still there after I thought I shut the place down...when I was single I ended up with a lot of teachers. They are probably one of the higher partying professions out there.

 

[alkemyst]

True but the fact that parents of private school children are more likely to be concerned with their children's performance has a much higher influence than what teachers can do.

Sure a good teacher can save a few more students but a great teacher with good students is able to accomplish much more.

There have been many studies on this. The fact is it's not so much private/home/public school but socio-economic level.

The 'richer' a person is, the more time they have to spend on their kids and the more structure usually present. I say spend on versus spend with for a reason. At upper economic levels, although the principals may be absent; they usually leave behind a pretty-damn good 'auntie'.

At lower levels, not much time is left at the end of the day by choice more often than requirement. There is no money for that same 'auntie'.

As a result those in the upper brackets get additional reinforcement at night and esp during time off. Those at the lower levels fall behind a bit each time.

The progression of this is interesting. Around 5th grade it's not so bad, by 8th; it's more apparent. Then each year of high school more and more so.

 

[1prophet]

That's a fallacy though...most that fail get kicked by the stockholders or don't take a cut.

The crap we hear about in the news are those that suckered the people into bailing them out.

IMHO most teachers are overpaid. They are the biggest group of whiners crying about entitlement meanwhile wanting to work less.

It's a sad state of affairs...but when you have teachers booming 'suck my dick' music while flying into an elementary school between kids in the crosswalk, you tell me if that's worth $60k.

Sorry stockholders kicking executives is a fallacy since the board of directors sets their pay and severance (golden parachute), the best they got right now is a nonbinding resolution.

Golden Parachutes
Also called golden handshakes or change-in-control payments, a golden parachute is a large sum of money -- or a combination of cash, stock options, consulting contracts and other benefits -- to be paid to one or more executives in the event of a takeover or change in ownership of a company. The practice became popular in the 1980s, and now golden parachute arrangements are in place for almost 80 percent of companies in the S&P 500 [ref]. Golden parachutes were initially intended to guarantee compensation to an executive should he or she be fired after a merger or takeover. Now some CEOs get large pay packages in mergers and still remain in control of the new company. An example is former Gillette CEO James Kilts, who received a $165 million pay package after orchestrating the sale of Gillette to Procter & Gamble in 2005. He was particularly criticized by members of the Boston media, where Gillette was based; critics claimed he benefited financially at the expense of shareholders and the 6,000 jobs that were cut from the combined company.
Some executives also receive golden handshake-type severance packages when they resign. In January 2007, Home Depot CEO Bob Nardelli resigned and received a severance package worth roughly $210 million. However, other executives have declined opportunities to receive large payouts, claiming that their regular compensation is sufficient and that executives should match company performance and align with shareholders’ interests [ref].
Severance payments more than 2.99 times an executive’s average annual compensation are subject to a 20 percent tax, but further regulation and government oversight may happen in the future. Some shareholder groups have begun lobbying to allow shareholders a greater say in executive compensation, and many companies are responding, usually by allowing their stockholders to submit non-binding resolutions on executive pay.

 

[alkemyst]

Sorry stockholders kicking executives is a fallacy since the board of directors sets their pay and severance (golden parachute), the best they got right now is a nonbinding resolution.

I have seen many executives getting kicked and their parachute paid.

Seems you don't really follow this debate.

 

[Rainsford]

True but the fact that parents of private school children are more likely to be concerned with their children's performance has a much higher influence than what teachers can do.

Sure a good teacher can save a few more students but a great teacher with good students is able to accomplish much more.

And private schools are able to make sure they have mostly good students. There really is no way to compare the two, since only public schools have a requirement to educate EVERYONE.

 

[dawp]

When I first saw this thread I thought of this story on CNN:

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/US/08/29/education.wv.finland/


seems higher pay isn't as important to teachers as being viewed as an Honorable and Respected profession. And not being forced to concentrate on test scores.

 

[Chaosblade02]

Wow, holy fucking defensive...sounds like you really aren't happy with that wage.

It's like saying "I can afford a F430 easy, people are stupid that can't and I don't even make that much".

Meanwhile they leave out the fact that they are living at home with no other bills.

Of course I live at home, where else would I be living? A fucking box? Its called living within your means, part of being smart is figuring out what you can afford and doing the best with what you got.

 

[sarsipias1234]

If our teachers are corrupt then they are teaching our children to be corrupt.

My experience with public education is that most of my teachers in California were horrible examples of human beings. Most were seriously obese. Most were seriously depressed and/or mentally ill. Most did very little teaching. Most of my teachers were examples of how to be corrupt and be miserable.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

It comes from the fact that the guy behind the hiring desk would hire a qualified candidate and blow out another failure from his ranks.

When you go on interview after interview and time and time again get a smirk then shown the door, you were never qualified to work in that field despite belief everyone should get a chance.

So, in your view, there is no such thing as an oversupply of qualified and competent people in a given field?

You're just maintaining your faith in your religious belief in Meritocracy.

 

[alkemyst]

So, in your view, there is no such thing as an oversupply of qualified and competent people in a given field?

You're just maintaining your faith in your religious belief in Meritocracy.

It would be very rare to find.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

No. I don't want to pay more taxes for glorified babysitters.

You sir are an ignorant ass.

 

[silverpig]

Paying the same teachers more to do the same job = same results

Paying the position more -> attract competition -> better teacher in position -> better results

Also, measuring outcomes in teaching is difficult to do. Standardized tests become an issue because some teachers teach to inspire students and give them an education, and other teachers teach for the test. Which teacher will actually produce the better outcome?

 

[chipy]

Depends on the subject. You can't pay a PE teacher the same as a Biology teacher but that's just my opinion. I got hounded by a recruiter trying to get me to teach science courses in either High School or a Community College. Starting salary was $21,000 a year though so I turned it down. If you're going to get anyone decent teaching at these positions you need to offer more money considering that during normal economic times you can make 2-3x that with very little effort straight out of college. With a bit of luck and lots of effort and hard work considerably more. My general impression of most teachers today is that they are subpar and that makes sense at their current salaries. Those teaching lower grades seem to just be glorified babysitters and that's just not right.

Just raising the salaries today doesn't do us any good though. You need to be able to fill those positions with better faculty. Generally speaking people will only work as hard as the weakest link and that means you'd have to fire an awful lot of teachers.

I also think you need to give teachers more power. It seems like lots of kids are coasting through High School without even learning how to read and write properly. Teachers need to be able to fail kids and hold kids as well as parents accountable. I don't recall the statistic on kids failing tests but it was something staggering and they're still getting diplomas. The military was even having a hard times since High School graduates were unable to pass the entrance exam.

this seems very logical. i'm not one to usually get involved in debates like these but i don't like the idea of having to pay subpar teachers more money. if the teacher is great, then yes they deserve a better pay, but otherwise no.

as for students - i never liked the ones who disturbed class or didn't appreciate the opportunity to learn and cost the rest of the class time because they were in arguments with the teacher. having said that, maybe those kids who don't like school shouldn't be forced to attend. maybe have a system where after middle school they can go work full time. i think if kids have problem with attitude, they'll probably have a hard time at work, possibly getting them fired. i would hope those consequences would force a change in attitude and behavior.

along with these, we need to fix entitlemens and the prison system. i think if people can't learn to be respectful and obey the law, they get sent to prison to work. they can grow their own food and manually generate their own electricity... no work, no food, no electricity. i think enforcement should have the goal of changing their behavior for the better and make them contributors to society/community.