"So what kind of teachers could a school get if it paid them $125,000 a year?"

Parent Cafe
101

<p>It isn’t big money for Madonna, Oprah, Billy Gates, or Peyton Manning. It is big money for a worker at McD’s. But none of those comparisons were in the article. A schoolteacher’s salary was the subject. The article tells us it is 2 and 1/2 times the average schoolteacher’s salary. I’m not a teacher but if I got a raise of 2.5 X what I’m making now, and 2.5X what my peers were earning, I’d think it big money.</p>

<p>The point of the article was that the school offered such a salary to draw what they hoped and expected would be far superior teachers. Obviously the school and the author of the article think it big money. I think given the context of the story, and the average teachers’ salary, yes it is big money.
Whether or not their plan will be sucessful is a very different topic.</p>

102

<p>It’s not big money for a college grad student.</p>

103

<p>$125,000/yr for working 183 days out of 365 days/yr. sure as heck isn’t little money. It’s important to put the salary in perspective to the number of working days set by the teacher’s union contract.</p>

<p>Be that as it may, there are plenty of teachers making over $100,000/yr out here on the east end of long island. It doesn’t make their teaching ability any better than the teacher making $45,000/yr. If I pay an employee $15.00/hour to work in my store, it doesn’t make him a better employee than if I were to pay him $10.00/hr. The money isn’t the issue. It’s the ability/ambition/desire of the employee that makes the difference.</p>

104

<p>

</p>

<p>Well it would make him more enthusiastic to take on addditional hours (up to a point). </p>

<p>Maybe if one rewarded teachers for hours spent outside of the classroom, through online communication. A lot of teachers communicate to their students at home through blogs and I find them valuable study aids. </p>

<p>How ambitious an employee would 45,000/yr get? If you were hiring a science teacher, would it be enough to pay the college debt of someone who excelled at the field, when he/she might be offered a job in biotech instead?</p>

<p>The first thing is to get rid of equalised pay for all teachers, and to fight the teacher unions. I generally have nothing against unionisation in general, but their intolerance of pay differentials is insufferable.</p>

105

<p>Listing weeks instead of days provides a more realistic view of how much time they work. I generally don’t calculate the number of working days in a year followed by dividing the 183 by that number to get an accurate estimate of the percentage of time that they are working. Using the aforementioned numbers gives you the impression that they are working for about half a year when, compared to private sector jobs assuming weekends off, they are working more than that.</p>

106

<p>I mention it in terms of days (183 days) because that is the way the teacher’s contracts are set up (I was a member of the teacher’s union. Their contract is based on #days/yr and not #weeks/yr). </p>

<p>Re: the issue of more pay making an employee more willing to take on additional hours–in theory, this may seem like a reasonable cause and effect idea. More pay=more work produced by the employee. The reality is that the employee usually begins to feel more comfortable in the position and doesn’t feel the need to work any harder. </p>

<p>Now, try this theory in a strong union based job. More money does not equate to more production by the employee unless the union agrees to changes with the worker’s contracts. The teacher’s union controls the public education in this country. Administration is suffocated and bound by the constraints of the teacher’s contracts. Unless the teacher’s union is stripped of some of its power and tenure is removed, nothing will change in regards to the education in public schools.</p>

107

<p>Okay, for those of us in the private sector, it’s 260 days (52x5) - 10 holidays - 15 vacation days = 235 days. 183/235 is about 78%. Using 183 out of 365 leaves the impression that teachers only work half the time that the private sector does.</p>

108

<p>

</p>

<p>The problem is that parents don’t really have theiir own unions. Sure there are parent associations, but parents are only vested in a school for four years, then they move on. There’s no incentive to continue clamouring for change once you leave.</p>

109

<p>Trust me when I say that community members are invested in the public school system for much longer than 4 years. As long as there are enormous property/school taxes to be paid every year, we, as a community, are very much involved in the school system. It’s important to remember that although the main objective of a school district is to educate the children of the community, there are other things about the school district that effect the taxpayers. The better the reputation of the district (test scores, graduation rates, AP’s, etc.), the better for our local real estate market (good school district almost always is reflected in higher value of housing market).</p>

110

<p>Yes, but often parents aren’t from the community their child goes to (especially for larger schools). </p>

<p>I have a feeling that the unions can be beaten on their own game by refusing to play ball, but just that the administration doesn’t have the courage – for lack of public backing or strength in public demand for change.</p>

111

<p>Here, you must live and pay taxes within the district in order to send your child to the local public school. To attend a public school out of the district, one must pay tuition out of their own pocket in addition to paying the local district’s school tax. The only exception is if a student with special needs can’t be serviced within the local district. In this case, there is the possibility that the local district will pay for the student to attend a school out of district but a lengthy process takes place before this happens.</p>

<p>It is easier for the administration to cave to the teacher’s union. The teacher’s union is too powerful. In order to fight against the union, it costs time, money, and a possible public relations nightmare (bad press) within the community and it’s surrounding area. Where is the money to fight them going to come from other than the taxpayers (which would mean an increase above the typical yearly tax increase and school budget increase)? The way the system is set up now, it is a no win revolving circle. </p>

<p>Oh well, I got sucked back into the thread after saying I was done here. I still firmly believe that tenure and the union have outlived its original purpose. It’s time for change but I don’t see it happening for a very long time.</p>

112

<p>So far on this thread, I see a lot of comments about bad teachers taking advantage of the tenure system. </p>

<p>1) What about the good teachers? Why are they being ignored on this thread? In my experience, there are considerably more of them. </p>

<p>2) If so many teachers are making more than $100,000/yr, why is the national average around $50,000?</p>

<p>3) There seems to be an argument comparing hourly wage to salary. How often are professional careers based on hourly wages? </p>

<p>4) If the opinions represented here are common to the public viewpoint of the tenure system, how specifically would you propose to change it?</p>

113

<p>I am one dual-credentialed teacher who has posted on several other threads previously over the last few years on cc, regarding some of these issues. This won’t be long. I wanted to respond to just some of the questions discussed.</p>

<p>I.m.o. contrasting the teachers of my youth and of my own young career when I first entered the field, with the situation of today, I see a night-and-day difference since teachers unionized. I know that not all teachers on cc agree with me, and do see the “necessity” of unions, but in my view the downside has exceeded the upside, because of what it originally, and ultimately, did to the image of teaching. It transformed it from a dignified, white-collar profession wherein was truly judged by one’s individual worth – much like an individual businessman, a doctor, or a lawyer – and wherein one was guided by a deep professional ethic (much like a doctor or a good defense lawyer) – to a blue-collar “equity” workers’ group, which in seeking uniformity and consensus, also lowered itself to the least common denominator, quality-wise. Suddenly teaching was all about “owed” wages/rights, not about professionalism emanating from the person.</p>

<p>Over the years I have had less and less in common with the union mentality, and find my attitude to be among a very tiny minority of currently employed educators. Most of the teachers who feel as I do, have retired. Because I lack that community of commonality, I no longer teach full-time in the classroom, although in my full-time role as educator I do teach my students a little bit each day (by choice).</p>

<p>Parents have a right to be cynical and upset. It used to be that any teacher “inheriting” an underskilled student on Day One in September, took it upon himself/herself to tutor that student after-hours to make the student as competent as possible by the end of the school year. This was just assumed as part of the ethic. Now teachers shamefully leave at 3:15 (most of the ones I personally know in my region), are rarely/never available to their students for even legitimate questions/assistance, and do not consider their responsibility to be anything beyond what this year’s curriculum presents. Tough for the underprepared student taught poorly by others. There are 1-3 exceptions to this at every school, but that is hardly something to brag about. Perhaps in my region I am just unlucky.</p>

<p>It’s a travesty that there are 180 (in my area) school days per year. Can administrators count? That’s less than half the year. And much of the 180 days are filled with “frill” days that are not days of learning whatsoever. This does not concern me so much as far as teacher vacations go (since they do stay into June after closing and do prepare easily from early to mid-August). Also, teachers have mandatory workshop days/weeks during the year. However, it does concern me as to quality and quantity of teaching time.</p>

<p>I have never personally met a teacher who makes $100K/year, despite the same charts I can read like everybody else. Most teachers make about $50K. I’ve known some with mich more seniority that have made up to $75K. But I do not see salary as an excuse for underperformance or for violating the assumed, universal ethic of service to one’s students.</p>

114

<p>I think everyone on this thread has made a point to acknowledge the wonderful teachers within the system. They are a gift to their students. The unique thing about these wonderful teachers is that they view their students as gifts to them as well. </p>

<p>I don’t know what the answer is in regards to revamping the unionization of the public school system. I suppose any changes must come from the government. This makes it even more difficult because of the strong network/ties that the Teacher’s Union has within the government (think about the ramifications–they are a very large section of voters that are tightly bound and tend to vote for those in government that do not pose a threat to their union). </p>

<p>I want to applaud those teachers who go to work everyday and understand the role they play in a child’s life. On the other hand, I would love to smack (not really) those that use the protection of their union and contract to linger on within a district for decades knowing that their apathy will have little to no negative consequences on their salary, "step up’s on the pay scale, job security, and retirement. </p>

<p>If you want to know where teachers can make $100,000 or more (it takes time of course to reach that level), look at the wealthier districts on Long Island where per student cost within the district is approx. $23,000/yr.</p>

115

<p>Epiphany, great post. I think the most interesting development in public education is the charter school movement. My DD is just finishing her first year in Teach for America at a traditional public school. Along with thousands of untenured teachers, she was laid off due to to our state budget crisis and she will spend next year at an excellent charter school. Already, I see the differences. The interviewing process was grueling – the standard at this school is three rounds of interviews and being observed teaching versus the usual one interview at our area public schools (I serve on the interview committee at my son’s high school.) Charter schools are known for really working their teachers. The school year is longer and the expectation of what a teacher will put in is equally high. Teachers know they can be fired if they do not perform well and that it wouldn’t be a huge undertaking for their principal to fire them. I think in any profession it ups your game if you know you can lose your job. Can a principal fire a teacher in a traditional public school? Yes, if they have nothing else to do and can commit to making it their life’s work. In reality, principals have a lot to do and can’t sit day after day in a classroom observing and building a case, etc. </p>

<p>Our district has shut down summer school for elementary and middle school students and high school is for credit recovery only. Charter schools will still have summer school. They operate more like a private school. The money follows the student and stays at their school rather than being absorbed by layers and layers of bureaucracy. These schools are still hiring – and hiring who they want – as opposed to the traditional schools that are being decimated by layoffs based on seniority. I think in our area, this is going to be the moment where charter schools begin to pull ahead because their students are going to lose out a lot less than the students at traditional schools.</p>

116

<p>I am intimately aware of the charter movement, having taught in those schools as well. They do tend to attract better teachers, but some of these schools are no better than site schools, suffering from the same agendas and dependent upon even fewer public funds than what’s available to site schools. In my region it’s a mid-step above an underperforming site school, but charter schools have their own problems when it comes to staffing and student access to services.</p>

117

<p>I think charter schools are like all schools, both private and public; some are outstanding and some less so. But I do think they have a freedom that traditional public schools lack.</p>

118

<p>They do and they are (freer). In my region, they suffer however from funding and staffing problems due to the large number of charters & charter requests (approaching 50% of the school population) vs. the available public dollars for charters, since funds are first appropriated to site schools.</p>

119

<p>

</p>

<p>I’ll take a crack at this - </p>

<p>1) There are, of course, good teachers but the emotions and issues are generally around the bad teachers. Most of us have been exposed to them if we’ve dealt with the public school system. I still remember getting the shrug of ‘nothing I can do about it’ from principals regarding their bad teachers. The good teachers are, however, affected because of the union approach taken in so many districts where teachers aren’t paid for performance. Again, IMO the good teachers should be receiving larger increases than the bad teachers and the bad teachers should be fired and replaced with better quality teachers. </p>

<p>2) I just assumed people are talking about those few locations in the country, like NYC, where teacher salaries are pretty high (according to what I’ve heard). Certainly most teachers don’t make that much in salary. However, when discussing salary one should also discuss benefits and many teachers (and other public employees) receive much better benefits than the professionals in private industry. Salary comparisons also need to be normalized so one isn’t comparing a 9 mo. year filled with extra holidays to a 12 mo. year. Regardless, I don’t think it’s common that most teachers make > $100K.</p>

<p>3) It doesn’t really matter but yes, professional positions are usually discussed from an annual salary perspective. However, I think the teacher unions minimize the ‘professional’ aspect of the teacher and bring it down to the level of a factory job by attempting to control so many aspects of the teacher compensation and employment factors.</p>

<p>4) If it were up to me, which it isn’t, I’d get rid of tenure and get rid of the union. I’d treat teachers as professionals. I’d hire the best I could for the budget I had. I’d readily get rid of the bottom performers and reward the top performers regardless of seniority. In short, I’d run it the way most businesses in this country are run regarding their professional employees.</p>

120

<p>

</p>

<p>Even a teacher in NYC who is making more than 100k most likely have a masters + 30 credits and more than 20 years in the system, which is definitely not reflective of the majority of the people working for the NYC DOE. NYC teachers make way less $$ than their Long Island and Westcher County counterparts with the same credentials.</p>

<p>FWIW, my last years in corporate life I had 6 weeks vacation, 10 sick days, 12 holidays 4 floaters, my birthday, half day fridays from memorial day thru labor day, flexible work schedule (even worked virtual), and never had to take work home. Given BC Eagle’s calculation of 260 work days, I only worked 197 days a year in corporate life for a lot more $$.</p>