<p>
</p>
<p>The amount is so trivial (about $350 per teacher) that it’s not really something to think about. For other jobs people have to buy suits that they otherwise wouldn’t, or they have go to a physical location outside of where they work and pay for gas, or they have to do something else like that. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>well sure, it’s a nice to have. But it is just that, a nice-to-have. Since local school boards are typically highly influenced by the local teachers unions, a MA is an easy way to give them more pay. (Everyone wants more pay.)</p>
<p>But from a public policy perspective – and a taxpayer perspective – there is no demonstrated classroom advantage for holding a grad degree. In the private sector, a grad degree would not earn extra money if it was not a necessary aspect of the job.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And parents kick in a lot for supplies, too. And that is awful – classrooms should be fully-funded (and would if I was philosopher-king). Of course, districts would have more money for supplies if they didn’t pay extra – just bcos - for holding a grad degree. :D</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No bonuses in any district I know of in PA and only administrators get medical for life. Wow, I can’t imagine a school board around here signing such a contract. I appreciate the perspective.</p>
<p>In our district, salary information is available online. Just look up any teacher and you’ll find his/her salary. One of my kids’ worst teachers was making $100,000. One of the best, teaching AP Calculus, was only making $60,000. It’s all seniority.</p>
<p>I think what’s really going on in this discussion about teacher pay is that Americans in general are getting poorer and teachers (with some seniority) actually earn a living wage. According to some posters, more than a living wage: a good wage. So the cliche about underpaid teachers is out-dated. Fine, I’m willing to accept this argument. But ask yourself: how did teachers get these salaries? I’d say their unionization. And I’d also say that the decline in American middle class salaries vis-a-vis costs of living came about the same time as the decline of unions which also coincided with the radical rise in executive salaries. (Funny how that works.) Maybe instead of begrudging teachers their hard-won financial contracts, you should follow their example? Fight for your salaries, your rights as professionals? </p>
<p>Don’t get me wrong. I think there are problems with American education and teachers are part of that problem. But I don’t think that unions (or tenure, for that matter) contribute as much to that problem as many of you appear to think that they do. </p>
<p>I think teachers and tenure are simply easy targets. And boy, have you been going after them both – because it’s easy to criticize the obvious. And a lot harder to see, understand and offer solutions to the many nuances of this most complex, multi-faceted issue. </p>
<p>katliamom- I agree with you. My family and friends all are doing very well financially in their private sector careers and actually think teachers are underpaid and would never go into the field. My sister who is very successful left her career for a few years for personal reasons and when she decided to go back to work thought about teaching. She took a long term sub position teaching math and as soon as it was over said no way. The pay does not meet the requirements. She did not mean the sub pay either.
The animosity for teachers ramps up in times of economic insecurity.</p>
<p>The problem with teaching as profession, particularly in the public sector, is that the market in many places does not reflect the pay. In one school district, one year, there were 400 applications, AFTER they had been culled of those ineligible for the positions, for each teaching job available. We see similar situation in areas where it is not considered a war zone. Teachers are NOT rare except in certain areas, so the pay is NOT justified in an economic model The unions have resulted in an overall level of pay and benefits that the profession does not deserve instead of stratifying the jobs to pay where the need is. </p>
<p>The problem also is the long term vs short term picture. Without offering a living wage, a good wage in the profession, one cannot attract the best in the field. So the economic model does not stand in a vacuum as many so show it. But still, it’s an issue that the social studies teacher that can be replaced in a blink of an eye, in a nice suburban area for which there are 400 candidates for each job, is getting as much as the revolving door jobs in some inner cities where a teacher literally puts his/her life at risk, where there are so few takers for the jobs that a lot of leeway is given to candidates to the point where they have not gotten the training to do the jobs. Also in back country areas that are hurting because that is now where young teachers, or many with educations and choices want to go. </p>
<p>So the unions with their dogged attention is just getting the most they can for their members have left a lot of carnage in the fields where they were heavily involved. The teaching field may well end up going the way of a lot the others as people are not so stupid that they cannot see the heavy disparity between the market and what a field is paying simply because the strong arms of union are keeping it up there. Some disparity, for futures sake, is needed.</p>
<p>I’ve been a heavy union support, also a supporter of teachers all of my life, but the last several years just watching how the teachers’ unions around here have operated, has made me re evaluate and withdraw my support. The groups here are greedy, grappling and mean spirited. They don’t want to lose anything they have even at the expense of children and family, the most vulnerable of the lot, even. I don’t want to even go into the despicable way handicapped and specials needs are too often not addressed which may even be favorable to not addressing them. If I could have a second career, busting teachers unions would be a pleasure for me, given the situations I have seen. </p>
<p>I have no idea about the situation in California, so none of my comments directly apply to it. I can tell you that my family there do not put their kids in the public schools, even living in the top districts. My brother came out of his retirement to work so that his kids could stay in the private schools when he lives right down the street from what is considered a top school in the state. And he was very happy in his retirement.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In NYS, it’s perfectly legal for teachers’ spouses to serve on our school boards. They are, in effect, negotiating their own family income.</p>
<p>Like scoutsmom, I live in PA. … where there are no bonuses, tax increases have to go to referenda, most educators I know personally bring home less now than 5-6 years ago, and the pension crisis brought on by the state (not the teachers, other taxpayers, or the feds) is about to close schools as boards try to meet unfunded mandates . The edubusiness millionaires are making a fortune on PA charter “schools”, the Philly district is $400 million in the hole, and state higher ed funding is non existant. It’s a really complicated problem but I don’t agree that somehow teachers are the primary problem. <em>pa teacher certifications is some of the most stringent in the country…PSU education grads have extremely high gpas and placement rates. So let’s stop implying that that major is the dumping ground for losers</em></p>