|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507
Legend
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507 |
I think that many teachers work hard during the school year ..... but so do the people who pay their wages. I think that they should be treated fairly, but not put on some sort of pedestal where they are above reproach, and above having their pay match their overall work load and schedule.
I made between $40-50K as a restaurant manager, as an example. I worked 50-80 hours/week. (and up to 100/week when I was working to turn a store around) I made about the same selling cars. Again, I worked 50-80 hours/week. I would also do work at home ...... scheduling ..... doing projections .... evaluations for my subordinate managers ........ and so on. When I sold cars, I would often do mailers at home ...... write letters to customers ..... and all of the stuff that I didn't want to do at work that would take me off the sales floor. 12-15 hour days in both professions were not out of the question, and neither were 6-7 day weeks. Teachers might work 10 hour days ..... Monday through Friday ..... but the key thing is that they get their summers off. Teachers get holidays off. They get a week+ off for Christmas. They get time off for Easter. The work about a 9 month schedule, and part of that is a part time schedule. (Boardman Schools have "professional days" prior to the school year where teachers with a 5 hour "flex" schedule. I'm not sure what they do during that time, but it is about a week or so before the school year.
Teaching is not a part time position, but it is just like many other jobs in that there are demands above and beyond the standard 8 hour day. Hell, many people don't even get an 8 hour day. Many work 10 just as the standard. I'm not saying that teachers work part time, but their time demands are certainly no worse than many of the taxpayers who support their salaries/benefits.
In Youngstown, I believe that the average salary is around $25,000 or so. The cost of living is also similarly low. How much more than the average salary should a teacher make for a 9 month schedule? I don't ask this to be smart, but rather because this is really the whole crux of the matter for many taxpayers. In an area where the average salary is $40,000, how much more than that should teachers make for a 9 month/year position? For colleges, where a professor teach 3 classes/week, 1 -1.5 hour each, 3-5 times/week, how much more than the average taxpayer should they make?
As far as Wisconsin, part of the savings with teachers is that they increased their contribution for healthcare and retirement, (IIRC) and they also allowed teachers greater choice than just the 1 union approved healthcare plan, where teachers could pay less for a different level of coverage. I don't think that this is unreasonable, or that it will cause teachers to flee the state.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,523
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,523 |
Damn you.
I was going to post exactly that.
I've just been a wee bit lazy.
Indecision may,or maynot,be my problem
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Walker received huge sums from people with no stake in Wisconsin. A much larger percentage of his money came from outside the state. I'm willing to bet that many of the outside unions have membership in Wisconsin, and therefore have some stake in the state, although I could be wrong.
Why is it ok for union people outside the state to support union people inside the state but it's not ok for non-union people outside the state to support non-union people inside the state? Because we don't have a similar t-shirt? 
Like it or not, this was a precedence setting event and its effects will go way beyond the wisconsin border... that is why so much time and money came from all over. Had Walker lost it would have emboldened people in any state where a politician dared to not bow to the big unions and anybody who ever had the audacity to tell them no would have been a candidate for possible recall and removal from office.. now I know that's exactly how the unions want it, but that doesn't make it right... and that's one of the reasons why so many people have such a negative opinion of unions.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,649
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,649 |
Quote:
Sorry. I disagree. Teachers are paid just fine. The retirment is to kill for.
I agree with you 100% here. At 50-80,000/year, teachers are paid adequately. Their retirement and medical, as it stands, comes out of their pay. However, I am aware that their monthly contributions to retirement and medical are a fraction of what people in the private sector pay out. Given the current state of things Arch, I agree with you. Teachers, and other workers in the public sector should have to pay for their medical a rate comparable with counterparts in the private sector. As for retirement, let teachers contribute to a 401k. - I'm fine with this man. I'm 34 years old, and worked at Home Depot and Progressive for years on end. I know what life is like on the other side.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,649
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,649 |
DC, sorry to narrow the discussion down to teachers here. But I'm wondering what the effects this legislation will have on Wisconsin's teachers. When we ask teachers to start contributing more for their medical benefits, we have to ask ourselves how this will affect their retirement. Because there is a distinct possibility that this will lead to fewer teachers retiring because they can no longer afford to. - Which will keep younger teachers from getting hired, which will lead to a shortage of younger teachers.
A shortage in qualified young teachers is the big problem in all of this. As it stands right now, to become a teacher, you must earn a 4 year degree. The program of study will include a content area and a battery of teaching courses. After completing four years worth of secondary school, you must pass three praxis tests to earn a license. - A general teaching test, a content area test, and a test to make you "highly qualified" in a specific area. The general teaching praxis test (PLT) is without a doubt the hardest test I have ever had to take. I won't go into specifics, but lets just say I know a few people who have had to re-take it a few times.
Say you get the four year degree and pass all of the licensing, then, most districts mandate that you have a masters degree in a set amount of time (usually within 5 years of getting hired). If you don't have a masters degree, then anybody who has less time in than you with a masters degree is above you in seniority ranking - which means, in a nutshell, you need to have your masters degree.
Now take into account all of the layoffs that have affected teachers over the last few years. I know a guy with three math licenses (elementary, middle, high school) who has been laid off 3 times during his 9 years of teaching. - I just saw him the other day, and he is trying to get out of the profession entirely.
Point is, If the pay isn't good, and the job market is overcrowded with folks who can't afford to retire, and layoffs are happening, who in their right mind would be willing to invest money in a bachelors degree, then a masters degree, and go through the stress of the licensing exams for the sole purpose of becoming a teacher?
Taxpayers want some equity, I get that. Taxpayers do not want to pay for people with similar background and qualifications to have a better quality of life than they do. - I get it and agree 100% with this ideology. However, people need to realize that a lot more time and money goes into becoming a teacher than it does into becoming a fireman or service worker. If we lump teachers and their unions into the reform that aims to get public workers on par with private workers, then nobody is going to become a teacher.
So you know, the other day I told a fourth grade student that she would be receiving a detention for her negative behavior and that she would stay after school later in the week. Her response was "I'll get my mommy up here to cuss you out." I was then told by a colleague that earlier in the school year, the same 4th grader's mother had to be escorted out of the building by security for confronting a different teacher in front of her entire class.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
But I'm wondering what the effects this legislation will have on Wisconsin's teachers. When we ask teachers to start contributing more for their medical benefits, we have to ask ourselves how this will affect their retirement. Because there is a distinct possibility that this will lead to fewer teachers retiring because they can no longer afford to.
Ok but should a teacher be able to retire at 50 with their 25 years in and a nice pension and keep collecting checks for the next 30 years? I understand your comment about lack of young teachers but is it a good thing that we are enticing our veteran teachers to retire at a fairly early age when, theoretically, they are the better more experienced teachers?
Quote:
A shortage in qualified young teachers is the big problem in all of this. As it stands right now, to become a teacher, you must earn a 4 year degree. The program of study will include a content area and a battery of teaching courses. After completing four years worth of secondary school, you must pass three praxis tests to earn a license. - A general teaching test, a content area test, and a test to make you "highly qualified" in a specific area. The general teaching praxis test (PLT) is without a doubt the hardest test I have ever had to take. I won't go into specifics, but lets just say I know a few people who have had to re-take it a few times.
As somebody who has never been through it, is it necessary? Is it a decent system for weeding out and making sure we get the best, most qualified and committed teachers? Because in the end, that's what we want.
Quote:
Say you get the four year degree and pass all of the licensing, then, most districts mandate that you have a masters degree in a set amount of time (usually within 5 years of getting hired). If you don't have a masters degree, then anybody who has less time in than you with a masters degree is above you in seniority ranking - which means, in a nutshell, you need to have your masters degree.
This just seems stupid to me. Why in the heck does a K-12 teacher NEED a masters degree? I can see if you want to move into administration because that is a different skill set than teaching in the classroom but why does a 7th grade history teacher need a masters degree? We have become far too hung up on degrees and certifications.. and this is from a guy who has a BS and a MS...
Quote:
Now take into account all of the layoffs that have affected teachers over the last few years. I know a guy with three math licenses (elementary, middle, high school) who has been laid off 3 times during his 9 years of teaching. - I just saw him the other day, and he is trying to get out of the profession entirely.
While I feel bad for him, this is going on in almost all vocations everywhere. My only problem with public education is that frequently its not the right people being layed off, its the people who don't have the masters degree, its the people with less seniority... to heck with how good they are. I work in construction management... I'd fire the guy with the masters degree and 12 years experience in a heartbeat if I thought the guy with 4 years experience and no masters degree could do the job better and I could only afford to keep one of them. And thats where unions lose a lot of support from people like me.
Quote:
Point is, If the pay isn't good, and the job market is overcrowded with folks who can't afford to retire, and layoffs are happening, who in their right mind would be willing to invest money in a bachelors degree, then a masters degree, and go through the stress of the licensing exams for the sole purpose of becoming a teacher?
You could say something similar about a lot of professions right now. In the end you have to love what you do... if you love what you do, then you will make it work. You also have to be flexible, you might have to move, there are places that are still hiring teachers... Used to be you got your degree in education and there was a job waiting for you pretty close to home... times are changing. My company works primarily on the east coast doing construction management, we do a fair amount of work for the federal governement and state governments... Recently we got a job on the big bridge project in Cleveland, another in Columbus, one in Denver and a few on the Canadian and Mexican borders, we got a job in Australia, we are sending people to Iraq and Afghanistan, Mumbia, India and other places... some of these jobs are a few months, some are a couple years.... and every time one of these opportunities comes up a few people with the skill set to do the job are asked if they want it... if they turn it down, there is no guarantee that we can keep them busy close to home... they have to understand that walking away from that project might be walking away from their job... Its not just in teaching that hard choices are being made. And I will add this, our engineers who are offered these positions aren't making a ton of money...
Quote:
Taxpayers want some equity, I get that. Taxpayers do not want to pay for people with similar background and qualifications to have a better quality of life than they do. - I get it and agree 100% with this ideology. However, people need to realize that a lot more time and money goes into becoming a teacher than it does into becoming a fireman or service worker. If we lump teachers and their unions into the reform that aims to get public workers on par with private workers, then nobody is going to become a teacher.
True, but teachers don't run into burning buildings either.. so there are some trade offs.  Look, I'm a free market guy at heart and believe that free market principles work. However, I reconcile that with the fact that you can't totally apply free market principles to government jobs because they are being paid with taxpayer money, not with money generated from profit. In my business its easier, if I can't sell your services, if you aren't bringing in work and staying billable, then I don't need you. However I'm free to pay you based on the work you bring in and the quality of work you put out for the client because the better that is, the higher the hourly rate I can charge for your time. Education doesn't work that way and I get that. I don't think that 100% free market principles will work in free public education but I also don't think that unions, with unbendable rules that often seem to work the hardest to protect the WORST of their profession, is the perfect system either.
Quote:
So you know, the other day I told a fourth grade student that she would be receiving a detention for her negative behavior and that she would stay after school later in the week. Her response was "I'll get my mommy up here to cuss you out." I was then told by a colleague that earlier in the school year, the same 4th grader's mother had to be escorted out of the building by security for confronting a different teacher in front of her entire class.
I've coached little league baseball, basketball and soccer and while I understand that is NOTHING like teaching, it did give me a taste for what it is like to have control over other peoples kids.. and it can be ugly. 
So my summary would be this... my kids have been blessed to have good teachers throughout their public education so far... in general I've never had a problem with their teachers... I have, on the other hand, had TREMENDOUS problems with the bureaucrats that run the education system. I think it sucks that they make teachers get all of this training then work for marginal pay but then tie their hands behind their back when it comes to what they are allowed to teach, how they are allowed to discipline, how they are allowed to grade, etc. My problem is with the total lack of accountability that teachers are allowed to enforce on kids, the system really is set up to undermine the efforts of well meaning parents.
My son is 15, finished 10th grade last week, very smart, recommended for honors classes... he doesn't do his homework. He gets good grades on quizzes and tests but his final grades are never good because he doesn't do the homework. I got an e-mail from his history teacher last year (went out to all of the parents) and it was an announcement that the final day to turn in late work was 2 weeks away so make sure all of the kids got their stuff in to get some credit for it. My son had numerous things that he had not turned in. I called the teacher, he was very nice, probably in his 40s. I asked him WHY he was giving kids this opportunity to turn all of this stuff in and he told me that he had to. It was policy that they were to grade the kids on how well they knew the subject and not on their effort to turn stuff in. I asked him if he realized how that was undermining MY efforts since I was at home every night hammering away on personal responsibility and the need to meet deadlines etc while the message he was getting at school was, "Don't worry about it, turn it in whenever you can." He said he understood but there was nothing he could do about it, he also told me that my son was not alone, over 80% of the kids in his honors class had at least 2 missed assignments. I told him that if my son didn't turn his stuff in on time, give him a zero and keep it a zero. He said he couldn't. I told him that if that meant my kid failed, then that is what I wanted. Better he fail 10th grade and learn a lesson than never develop the habits he needs to sustain him at a job later in life. He told me that in his 20 years of teaching, I was the FIRST parent to ever ask him to fail a kid.. he said he gets hundreds of calls and e-mails from parents begging for better grades, begging for test retakes, begging for more time.. but I was the first one that ever called and told him to fail the kid if that's what he deserved. He genuinely felt bad about the way he was FORCED to conduct his class and stuff like this is going on all over the place.
Beyond the pay and the benefits and the unions and the retirement and the layoffs, I know of a couple teachers who walked away from the profession simply because they were frustrated with the system... they had the passion to teach sucked out of them by bureaucrats who had never been teachers but felt compelled to lay down these rules on how teachers had to do their job.
I don't have all the answers. As I said, I don't think 100% free market will work, I don't necessarily think having a strong union is working either... but mostly I think the system is broken from the top down. I think there are a bunch of really good teachers out there striving to do the best they can with the crappy hand they have been dealt by omnipotent bureaucrats who make rules based on the latest fads and not on the tried and true methods that it takes to teach and raise responsible kids.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
Quote:
Quote:
Sorry. I disagree. Teachers are paid just fine. The retirment is to kill for.
I agree with you 100% here. At 50-80,000/year, teachers are paid adequately. Their retirement and medical, as it stands, comes out of their pay. However, I am aware that their monthly contributions to retirement and medical are a fraction of what people in the private sector pay out. Given the current state of things Arch, I agree with you. Teachers, and other workers in the public sector should have to pay for their medical a rate comparable with counterparts in the private sector. As for retirement, let teachers contribute to a 401k. - I'm fine with this man. I'm 34 years old, and worked at Home Depot and Progressive for years on end. I know what life is like on the other side.
My understanding is teachers do pay for their own retirement - in Ohio anyway. Perhaps I'm wrong?
I know my mom taught for 38 years before she retired. I know her highest paying year teaching was $50,000. I also know she gets right around $45,000 a year in retirement. She's been retired for roughly 10 years now.
I also know another couple that put in their 30 years teaching. Close to same age as my mother. Same school district. Let's assume they were paid similarly to my mom - $50,000 a year, each. Let's say that since they retired after 30 years (which they did), they only get $40,000 a year, each. Plus health care.
That's $80,000 a year in income - which, around here, is living pretty high. 80 grand for not working, vs. 100 grand for working? Hmmm..........
They both retired at age 52.
My point is - they'll be receiving these benefits for 30 to 40 years. It is unsustainable - even if it is 100% self funded. Because at some point, it won't be viable if it's 100% self funded.
I just happen to feel - and I may be wrong - but I feel Ohio is going to be facing similar situations sooner rather than later..........similar to Wisconsin - where the promises can't be kept.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Wisconsin Governor Defeats Recall
|
|
