Back in the old days, the profession of teacher commanded utmost respect.
Today people see teachers lower than garbage collectors. It is a travesty.
Should Teachers Make $60,000 a Year?
SodaHead Living
2011/09/02 19:00:00
|
|
|||||
|
742 votes
|
|
62% | |||
|
267 votes
|
|
22% | |||
|
180 votes
|
|
15% | |||
We’re not sure why this is even up for debate in the modern world. But there are people out there who disagree with Secretary of Education Arne Duncan’s proposal to give a significant pay hike to teachers.
Now class, before we begin, let’s put the topic in perspective.
Golfer Tiger Woods made over $62 million this year. In 2010 actor Johnny Depp earned $75 million. And in a twelve-month period ending this past April, author James Patterson took in $84 million.
Golfer Tiger Woods made over $62 million this year. In 2010 actor Johnny Depp earned $75 million. And in a twelve-month period ending this past April, author James Patterson took in $84 million.
Granted, they are all highly entertaining individuals. True, each is truly skilled in their given craft. But is the work they’re doing making a significant contribution to the future of society?
Now let’s look at teachers.
They spend their days molding young minds. Not only are they instructing them on the necessary topics of reading, writing and arithmetic, but the good ones are also helping shape attitudes and behaviors. How can a higher value not be put on that?
They spend their days molding young minds. Not only are they instructing them on the necessary topics of reading, writing and arithmetic, but the good ones are also helping shape attitudes and behaviors. How can a higher value not be put on that?
Duncan’s suggesting that teachers get a starting salary of $60,000 with a chance to earn up to $150,000 a year. Right now, the average salary is closer to $52,000. True there’s no guarantee that a higher paid teacher means a better teacher. But it certainly seems like the right group of employees to take a risk on. Surely Tiger, Johnny and James would agree?
What about you? Do you think teachers should make $60,000 a year?
Want to know the dirty details on how people voted? Check out SodaHead's Deep Dive infographic for more info on voting demographics.
Want to know the dirty details on how people voted? Check out SodaHead's Deep Dive infographic for more info on voting demographics.
Top Opinion
-
lulzifer 2011/09/02 20:04:35
Absolutely no money ought to come out of a school teacher's pocket to buy school supplies, that's a given.
1) $60k is twice the national average pay for people in the U.S.
2) The more we spend on education the lower we rate in the world in the area of education
3) Teachers already get better benefits and health care than ANYONE in the world
4) Private school teachers earn on average $39,630 and do a better job and their students have higher levels of learning AND are proven to be more likely to do volunteer work and are more likely to be better adjusted into society
5) 52% of parents with kids in public schools are satisfied with their schools while 79% of private school parents are satisfied
6) The govt already contributes an additional nearly $9000 per year towards retirement for public teachers while private teachers only have about $4000 in retirement benefits spent on them yearly
7) In the last 50+ years student teacher ratio went from 26:1 to 15:1 yet the students test scores have remained stagnant - 17 year old students have remained statistically the same in math and reading since the early 70's while the cost per student has more than quadrupled to over $10,000 per student
Can Anyone say school vouchers and more private schools?
It makes no sense to compare a teachers pay to an actor, author, successful businessman or even the president who is making millions with the side benefits of being president--this is just another argument propagated by socialists and their petty class warfare.
2. If teachers didn’t have to police the classrooms and hallways maybe they’d have more time to teach. AND if parents disciplined their offspring, maybe teachers would be teaching children instead of trying to ride rough shod over hooligans.
3. I don’t begrudge teachers or anyone else their benefits. We should ALL get those kind of benefits. The corporations who are raking in trillions can certainly afford to ante up but they don’t and we are all saps for putting up with this.
4. Private schools CHOOSE which students they will take. Chances are they take students from upper middleclass to upper class families who are already primed by their parents to succeed and apply themselves to their school work. I believe that the will to learn and the tools needed to learn begin at home and a lot of our children simply do not have this advantage.
5. See answer to #4.
6. Seen answer to #3.
7. When I went to grade school we had 50 children in my classroom. The difference was that we were dressed properly, knew we were there to learn and knew that we would catch it from our parents if we acted up in class. Our parent helped us with our homework and made sure we were prepared f...
2. If teachers didn’t have to police the classrooms and hallways maybe they’d have more time to teach. AND if parents disciplined their offspring, maybe teachers would be teaching children instead of trying to ride rough shod over hooligans.
3. I don’t begrudge teachers or anyone else their benefits. We should ALL get those kind of benefits. The corporations who are raking in trillions can certainly afford to ante up but they don’t and we are all saps for putting up with this.
4. Private schools CHOOSE which students they will take. Chances are they take students from upper middleclass to upper class families who are already primed by their parents to succeed and apply themselves to their school work. I believe that the will to learn and the tools needed to learn begin at home and a lot of our children simply do not have this advantage.
5. See answer to #4.
6. Seen answer to #3.
7. When I went to grade school we had 50 children in my classroom. The difference was that we were dressed properly, knew we were there to learn and knew that we would catch it from our parents if we acted up in class. Our parent helped us with our homework and made sure we were prepared for the next day. They were INVOLVED. Parents have their kids running around to “activities” so much and they are so involved in their own lives that there’s no time for study like there used to be years ago.
There will always be professions that pay more than a teacher's pay and the comparisons are often not valid. But teachers are not paid commensurate with their educational background, their extra-curricular responsibilities, and all the extra hours they put in.
Just different perspectives. The truth is in there somewhere!
2. Both of you are right.
3. Teachers don't get better health care and benefits than ANYONE in the world. That's just plain not true.
4. Private schools do better with less. And not all private schools CHOOSE which students they will take. Having taught in parochial schools (church-related) for many years, Pat's comment is far from reality. We took in all kids, all races, economic levels, abilities, many with learning and other difficulties. We just didn't deal with all that stuff bureaucratically like the public schools do.
6. Times are changing for teachers as well as those in the private sector. Depending on the school district, some teachers pay ALL of their premiums for retirement and medical care. I know of several that do. Earn Free Silver, your assumptions are incorrect and cloud the issues of this conversation.
7. Again, EarnFreeSilver, the only way you're ever going to come up with a 15:1 student/teacher ratio i...
2. Both of you are right.
3. Teachers don't get better health care and benefits than ANYONE in the world. That's just plain not true.
4. Private schools do better with less. And not all private schools CHOOSE which students they will take. Having taught in parochial schools (church-related) for many years, Pat's comment is far from reality. We took in all kids, all races, economic levels, abilities, many with learning and other difficulties. We just didn't deal with all that stuff bureaucratically like the public schools do.
6. Times are changing for teachers as well as those in the private sector. Depending on the school district, some teachers pay ALL of their premiums for retirement and medical care. I know of several that do. Earn Free Silver, your assumptions are incorrect and cloud the issues of this conversation.
7. Again, EarnFreeSilver, the only way you're ever going to come up with a 15:1 student/teacher ratio in any public school I know of is if you include all the teacher-aides, music teachers, special ed teachers, etc. in the mix. 15:1 is a huge exaggeration.
8. We need a longer school day, more school days per year, fewer "late-start" days (whoever dreamed up that disastrous idea?) and holidays, and NO school athletics. That's the only way we're ever going to compete in this world and maintain any kind of standard-of-living in the USA.
3. That is a generalization and you are correct. But government employees DO have some of the best care in the US and therefore in the world.
6. While some pay their own premiums... Where do they get that money? They get it from YOU and ME. Their entire income is derived from the backs of the producers and, to me, no person should make more and get more than the person they are taking from. A "For Profit scenario" is different because those people are producing and purchasing what they want and what it is worth to them.
A tax however, taken unwillingly from a public to pay for an alternative they do not want is hypocritical especially when they could take those same funds and put their children into a school that will better serve them and their children.
"More School Days" I could agree with less summer vacation. As far as longer school day, I do not want the state raising my children any more than they already do.
"NO school athletics" is, in my opinion, a terrible idea. We talk of cost of benefits being paid out which also relates to fitness and obesity. A daily fitness regimen keeps our kids alert, healthy, and overall more productive now and in the future. Athletics also raises our level of competitiveness and teaches kids to push and perform.
Eventually, at this rate, the larger majority portion of the population who is living off the taxes of the few, simply vote themselves politicians and leaders who will give them raises and destroy even further the tax base.
Occupy Wall Street People should be protesting government employees. Politicians and government employees are voting themselves raises and are the "haves" and taking more from the "have nots".
Sure there are some ruthless billion dollar companies. But there are MILLIONS of government employees taking from the working people of this country on a daily basis to make more than the actual worker. All to provide a substandard education compared to private schools.
Truth be said, each of these hard working tax paying people would much rather designate where their tax dollars go and...
Eventually, at this rate, the larger majority portion of the population who is living off the taxes of the few, simply vote themselves politicians and leaders who will give them raises and destroy even further the tax base.
Occupy Wall Street People should be protesting government employees. Politicians and government employees are voting themselves raises and are the "haves" and taking more from the "have nots".
Sure there are some ruthless billion dollar companies. But there are MILLIONS of government employees taking from the working people of this country on a daily basis to make more than the actual worker. All to provide a substandard education compared to private schools.
Truth be said, each of these hard working tax paying people would much rather designate where their tax dollars go and to the school of THEIR choice and be able to pay for that school with that tax dollar. That is my point. School vouchers put competition and results back into the schools. Results matter.
When you sit there and say "We should all get those benefits" the question remains -- Who will pay for them?
We see how that master plan is working for Europe...
And in any case--why should that teacher be paid so much more than the very parents who are paying their salary. Not that I am against teachers. This is just simply economically and financially unsustainable.
In the public school system the wages earned by parents and those by teachers cannot be compared. In NYC public schools students come from all socioeconomic backgrounds. The bottom line is that teachers all have advanced degrees, are highly trained and specialized professionals, and are much needed, especially in the inner cities.
That means, that across the groups, the average income for someone with a college degree at all, in present dollars, is $60,000 dollars exactly (do the math). That also means that for Master's degree recipients the average income is $71,426 (give or take). Now presuming that the person starts at $60,000 and gets raises, that will end up being roughly their average salary - which far from putting them above other EQUIVALENT wage earners, puts them in the middle of the pack.
You are attempting to mix graduate educated workers with undergraduate educated workers, highschool educated workers, and those who do not have a high school education in order to get your figure of twice the national average. To which I respond with the following:
1. If you want your children educated by someone whose only qualifications are...
That means, that across the groups, the average income for someone with a college degree at all, in present dollars, is $60,000 dollars exactly (do the math). That also means that for Master's degree recipients the average income is $71,426 (give or take). Now presuming that the person starts at $60,000 and gets raises, that will end up being roughly their average salary - which far from putting them above other EQUIVALENT wage earners, puts them in the middle of the pack.
You are attempting to mix graduate educated workers with undergraduate educated workers, highschool educated workers, and those who do not have a high school education in order to get your figure of twice the national average. To which I respond with the following:
1. If you want your children educated by someone whose only qualifications are to flip burgers - that's your problem -- I don't want mine so educated.
2. I wonder if the dishonesty in your presentation is deliberate. I hope not.
In answer to your other notes.
2. There is no relativity between the two for two reasons:
a. The money is not evenly distributed. I know of public schools in NYC that don't have math books. To say that the performance of students who don't know where their next meal is coming from and are attending schools with no books should be or could be equivalent in general to students from affluent families in rich suburbs is ridiculous and false. If you want to make sweeping statements, please actually get top end districts, where this money you talk about actually is - and compare THEIR results with the rest of the world.
b. Most other countries in the world continue to increase stress on education, not reduce it -- parents are on board in nearly all of them, and people who run down the system either don't exist or don't have power to effect it. That combination has a considerable effect. Maybe working on getting people to actually be active in their schools would help. Years ago that happened to a poor district in Brooklyn and their performance skyrocketed. It does need a village, and a city, and a community. But even saying those words set off the SAME people that get upset with our performance.
3. Not true. Benefits are part of the package you negotiate - and in many private, non -union companies in this area, the benefits for equivalent workers (always an important distinction) are at least equivalent and often better than they are for teachers. The same was true in NY.
4. I don't care whether they do volunteer work or not. Subtract CATHOLIC, EPISCOPALIAN and LUTHERAN education from that grouping, then take another look on some basis used by the international community as regards the education level. No one denies that the actual parochial systems from the real churches do a tremendous job. They teach real subjects and real science. They also have the benefit of at least some teachers who are members of the religious and get little or no salary, thus pulling down the average salary range. (Nuns, for example). On the other hand, I have known people (at least 4 over the years) who went to evangelical schools and ended up with non existent education. They could do math just fine, but didn't know enough science or even real history to succeed in college, after being told that their knowledge of science was SUPERIOR to that of public school students by their h/s faculty. Not one of them managed to graduate from college - all tried. Now I know that some do, but I suspect that unless they continue the train and attend equally controlled colleges, a higher percentage wash out than wash out of public school graduates..
5. Of course they are. My son attends a private prep school - which we pay a great deal for. We approve of his school. Given how much we pay why is that a surprise?
6. EVERYONE should have decent retirement. EVERYONE. This argument more than any other you make points toward moral bankruptcy. Of course, again, you are not subtracting out the members of the religious who teach and who get NO retirement benefits before making the calculation. Hopefully that means that secular teachers get better than you think.
7. According to the inflation rate calculator provided by http://www.fintrend.com/infla... the inflation rate between 1970 and now is 482.60%. That means that far from quadrupling the spending power being spent on each student, as you imply here; rather in constant (or present or whatever word you prefer from economics) dollars, the amount spent per student has declined by about (using your base figures) 21.15%. That is hardly an increase in spending and therefore reinforces my contention that we are not spending enough in real money per student.
Now what we come to is a question I asked before. Are you listing these things because you've heard them, Are you listing them because you believe them and didn't look more deeply, or are you listing them to deceive? I hope its one of the first two.
Regards,
Reyn
Check any of my references you wish, you will find my reasoning is valid in every case.
Let's forget for a moment that teachers get their student loans forgiven, while other industries do not. Let's forget all the additional grants and scholarships and financial aid that is thrown at those who are majoring in education. Where does the money for teachers come from? Taxes. If you go from an average of 52k to a starting salary of 60k, that's going to be a big hike in taxes, and do we even need to go into how we're in the middle of a recession? Or the fact that paying them more doesn't mean they will do better. If we want to pay teachers better, I want them to be better teachers, which means they need to do well before they get raises. That's how other industries work - do well, and we'll give you more money.
So why is it that when it comes to taxpayer-funded jobs, we want to give out raises without discretion? Because its not "the company's" money, there is no need to make money, and operating at a loss is just how it works. What's wrong with more lo...
Let's forget for a moment that teachers get their student loans forgiven, while other industries do not. Let's forget all the additional grants and scholarships and financial aid that is thrown at those who are majoring in education. Where does the money for teachers come from? Taxes. If you go from an average of 52k to a starting salary of 60k, that's going to be a big hike in taxes, and do we even need to go into how we're in the middle of a recession? Or the fact that paying them more doesn't mean they will do better. If we want to pay teachers better, I want them to be better teachers, which means they need to do well before they get raises. That's how other industries work - do well, and we'll give you more money.
So why is it that when it comes to taxpayer-funded jobs, we want to give out raises without discretion? Because its not "the company's" money, there is no need to make money, and operating at a loss is just how it works. What's wrong with more loss, and screwing over the citizens just a little (or a lot) more by making them pay more for teachers who are not getting any better.
I have issues with how money gets funneled into schools already, since the teachers say its for the students, and replacing antiquated supplies/materials, only to then end up with raises for themselves, and nothing new for the students, all while the level of teaching remains low.
From Rick Parry's dominion.
Because teachers/public education is above criticism there is a incorrect view that more money will help improve test scores. In my school district we continue to have lower enrollment and yet higher spending.
We should thank a teacher today but not thoughtlessly give into to empty slogans or classwarefare. To do so hurts the students and further puts us into debt.