In RI, if the teacher pension liability wasn't so burdensome, the cities and towns could increase teachers' salaries. State pensions are transparent. The retirees and their payouts are on a state web site available for all to see. I know retired teachers, know how much effort they put into their careers, and see the pensions they're collecting ... funded by taxpayers, and I have to say they seem to be significantly overpaid in retirement.
My dad was a school teacher for decades. No berkeleying pension. He also worked all summer to get new lesson plans in place, get updated on new textbooks and new information, kept his certifications up, etc. You my friend are full of E36 M3. 
Chris_V wrote: My dad was a school teacher for decades. No berkeleying pension. He also worked all summer to get new lesson plans in place, get updated on new textbooks and new information, kept his certifications up, etc. You my friend are full of E36 M3.
What state?
Chris_V wrote: My dad was a school teacher for decades. No berkeleying pension. He also worked all summer to get new lesson plans in place, get updated on new textbooks and new information, kept his certifications up, etc. You my friend are full of E36 M3.
Interesting dichotomy of words you make ... my friend. I don't know where your father taught and maybe he taught before there were pensions, or maybe he taught at a private school. Regardless, I'm referring to the state I live in and the retired teachers I know and what the unfunded pension liability is here, piled on the backs of the taxpayers who didn't have a voice in said pensions. It is unsustainable. So don't get your knickers in a knot about a special situation being the rule.
The_Jed wrote: I have a wife and two children to support. Now, thanks to ACT10, my pay is stuck at that level for two years and I'm taking home less because I have to contribute a larger percentage to my health insurance, which for me now (as a machinist, not a hypothetical teacher) is $86 per week. Let's say it went up to $100 and my in-network coverage is reduced and my co-pays increased as well.
No offense intended, but welcome to the norm in the rest of the country(rising contributions/total cost for less coverage)
And FWIW, I support eliminating pensions for elected officials.
^I would wholeheartedly support that as well.
In reply to yamaha:
None taken. 
That's not my situation, it was just a hypothetical scenario my 3rd shift addled brain was trying to convey.
FWIW, my FIL taught for something a little over 30 years. Between his pension and social security I think he brings home about the same as he did when he was teaching. I do agree with the theory that if we paid teachers better, we would end up with better teachers, but in practice that would end up meaning we would pay more money for the same piss poor education for 30 years or so until the new crop of teachers pushed out the existing ones. I think if they did away with tenure and seniority and things like that so that the bad teachers could be let go instead of the most junior ones we would see quicker, more noticeable improvements.
I don't think that any government employee should belong to a union.
T.J. wrote: I don't think that any government employee should belong to a union.
While I agree, that alone won't solve the issue (of course - there is no 1 magic bullet). I interact regularly with an allegedly professional person in a position of bureaucratic power who is not exactly incompetent per se but who has a very large impact in delaying big projects and causing much waste of time and money. Everyone knows this, but nothing has been done about it for at least 10 years.
This is a person who has threatened to have my professional license suspended and me put in jail for disagreeing, has rejected my projects for problems that were wrong on other people's projects, has shouted and cried tears of rage in a public meeting, has obvious vendettas against clients of mine, etc etc etc. I'm sure he/she has his/her attorney cocked and locked, with his/her wrongful termination lawsuit already written and just waiting to slap on whoever finally has the nads to fire him/her.
mad_machine wrote: having a few friend who are teachers.. they do not only work 180 days a year. School is in session from Sept to June.. and during that time, they rarely have any real time off. They work before school, they work after school, they work on weekends, and they -have- to attend so many training days a year to keep their certifications. It is a fallacy to think they only work half a year
they also (at least in this state) have 30 days annual leave, 10+ days off at Christmas, spring break, election day …. etc … and they certainly aren't the only job that takes work home
I'm going to preface my answer her by saying my experience in this is a sister that is a college Dean and former teacher, and that I once dated a 3rd grade teacher for a few years. So take this for what it's worth.
First, this a problem much deeper than money. Our schools have problems far worse than what they pay teachers, especially in inner cities. But it's not just there. Here where I live, we are a town that has a very high income on average, and what is considered to be a good system. Our teachers are paid pretty well overall, and have good benefits. That said, the woman I dated quit and moved to Florida to get away from it. They were told they can no longer discipline kids in class, no longer raise their voice, and have a list of words that can never be used. They are told what to teach, given lesson plans, and lack any control in the class room to speak of. If the kids get unruly, they have a phone to call the parents on the spot, of which most couldn't care less. In fact, most of the problems with schools start at home and with the parents. Good teachers simply don't want to deal with the kids anymore, pay or not.
My sister is much the same. She has been doing this for 30 plus years and has seen it all during this time. Now, parents no longer want to know what the kid has done wrong and how to fix it, they blame everyone except the student and demand good grades even without the work being done. She is under constant physical threats from parents and has had to have guards on occasion.
Education has changed a lot, and saying it is all a money issue is not true.
In reply to racerdave600:
It all falls back to "Can't make 'em learn" in a way.
racerdave600 wrote: That said, the woman I dated quit and moved to Florida to get away from it. They were told they can no longer discipline kids in class, no longer raise their voice, and have a list of words that can never be used. They are told what to teach, given lesson plans, and lack any control in the class room to speak of. Education has changed a lot, and saying it is all a money issue is not true.
You can thank "No Child Left Behind" and standards-based education for those things. On which the Federal DoE spent a metric assload of money to determine what's "best" for everyone, which is what the Feds like to do.
z31maniac wrote:SVreX wrote:How is it a fallacy? It's a proven fact, study done by Harvard, that the teachers in our schools, on average, are at the very bottom of testing scores on entry exams for both undergrad and grad schools. Do you think anyone would go into STEM degrees if a starting Electrical Engineer made $30k a year?z31maniac wrote: If we paid better, we could actually attract the cream of the crop into our schools.This is a common fallacy. More money in K-12 does not produce a more educated populace.
Your "proven fact" (that teachers score low on entrance exams) is not related to what they are paid. The only thing that proves is that they score low.
And your Electrical Engineer example is backwards. You are saying people get Engineering degrees because the starting pay is good. Perhaps they get Engineering degrees because they want to be an Engineer.
What would make them want to become a teacher? I suggest nothing. Because frankly, most Electrical Engineers would make crappy teachers.
More money for teachers will not draw skilled people from the private sector because most of them would not make good teachers, and they know it.
It MIGHT encourage good teachers to stay longer, but I doubt it.
Most teachers who leave teaching (or never pursue it) do so because of other reasons. Most are burned out and tired of the bureaucratic BS, lack of support, as well as the lack of parental engagement. Those are not problems that can be addressed with higher wages for teachers.
mad_machine wrote: having a few friend who are teachers.. they do not only work 180 days a year. School is in session from Sept to June.. and during that time, they rarely have any real time off. They work before school, they work after school, they work on weekends, and they -have- to attend so many training days a year to keep their certifications. It is a fallacy to think they only work half a year
Sort of.
It is a fallacy to think they only work 180 days per year, but it is not a fallacy to see that they work less than the standard working year for the vast majority of employees.
My father was a teacher, and the president of the teacher's union. I've known a lot of teachers. The ones who chose to were perfectly capable of taking summer work that gave a pretty good bump to their income while maintaining their exceptional benefits, health care, and retirement packages.
There area very few jobs that offer the kind of overall package that teachers can make.
fwiw.. friend of mine got both a doctorate in Mathmatics and a teaching degree.. and manages the local Acme (yes, they exist) supermarket. When he graduated college, after working for acme over 10 years (since age 15) he would have had to take a pay -cut- to work in his chosen field... and having started a family while in college, he could not afford to do so
My Dad is 89.
He retired from teaching when he was 62, after 30 years of teaching.
His teaching pension is based on the last few years of his work experience, plus annual cost of living increases. He was smart enough to get the advanced degrees in time for the pay increases to reflect in his pension.
He collects much more annually than his average income while he was working.
In 3 years it will be official- he will have been paid for as many years not working as he was paid for working.
Do the math. That means he was paid twice as much as his salary actually says he was paid.
Plus, his healthcare is incredible. He basically has no medical expenses. My stepmother (also a teacher) had none either, in spite of a long drawn out loosing battle with cancer.
I wish I was a teacher. 
All the teachers I know who complain about teaching do so because of the long hours, the terrible kids, and the low wages compared to what they think they should be making.
All of the teachers I know who are happy live on limited budgets, travel extensively during the summer, and teach cool subjects that they are passionate about and that are outside of the common core. Art teacher, History teacher, German teacher, Shop teacher etc.
I knew a guy who quit teaching music, but I think that was a combination of low pay, troublesome kids, and the fact he was doing it in a isolated town with limited tail to chase.
Hmm...my dad was a high school teacher for nearly 40 years, but his pension and medical benefits weren't all that great.
Datsun1500 wrote: My office is across the street from an elementary school. School starts at 8:15 and gets out at 3:20. I can see the teachers parking lot from my front door. It is pretty empty at 7:45 and again at 4:15, so I am not sure when all of the "extra hours" come into play.
No way they could be working from home right?
In reply to Boost_Crazy: I've spent a lot of years working in and around poor people. Very few move out of it. It is a deeply rooted, powerful cultural mindset that lasts through multiple generations. Except for "poor college students". But, they are not really poor, or they wouldn't be in college.
Not true at all. The vast majority of people counted as poor today, will not be counted as poor five or ten years from now. Most of the people that are poor don't classify themselves or see themselves as poor. Those are the ones that are not looking for help from others or handouts. You won't find them in programs. Those people are why government programs need to advertise to increase enrollment. Those people are why such programs need to keep changing their names. And those are also the people who will move out of poverty. Do two things in your life, and the odds of living in long term poverty is very small. 1) Graduate high school. 2) Don't have kids out of wedlock. That's it. Two simple steps to avoiding a life of poverty. Of course there are always exceptions- mental and medical disability being obvious. But that is a very small portion of those living in poverty.
Another myth is that only those who make a lot of money can become wealthy, or that the wealthy have had it handed to them. In fact, the vast majority of the wealthy in this country are 1st generation wealthy. There are also many people of modest income who become wealthy. What and how you spend has as much or even greater impact on your acumilation of wealth as your income. Borrowing money kills your ability to grow wealth long term. Guess who borrows the most money.
In reply to Boost_Crazy:
I know someone who came from a somewhat wealthy family and inherited roughly 12 million dollars as a sophomore in college. A decade later, I learned that he was pennyless and living homeless in Atlanta. 
SVreX wrote: In reply to Boost_Crazy: I've spent a lot of years working in and around poor people. Very few move out of it. It is a deeply rooted, powerful cultural mindset that lasts through multiple generations. Except for "poor college students". But, they are not really poor, or they wouldn't be in college.
Ding!
Edit-
As for teachers, I am never against paying anyone more money to a certain point. People throwing $30k/year with a 4 year degree around
I know you'se guys' cost of living varies extremely depending on which area of the country you are in, but damn that seems low.
And finally, I will never be on the side of "these people work so little, they shouldn't be paid that much". Maybe you should turn it around and think why YOU get paid so little for how MUCH you work. That attitude benefits everyone but the richest of the rich. Bring everyone up, not everyone down.
The corporations do have a good system going though. "We, the big company worth millions or billions, dictate our working arrangement. As incentive, compete among yourselves and we will cherry-pick those of you we want to let into the club, for vague and dubious reasons. The rest still get crushed to a pulp with low wages and poor morale. Oh, and the rules are subject to change at anytime, or however they want to make it better for us, not you"
But hey, keep living the american dream. You crushing your fellow citizen (for paltry amounts of money compared to what you earn for the company you work for) is part of it. 
In reply to HiTempguy:
You guys are describing the exceptions to the rule. Unfortunately, you are also describing what most people think about when they think poor. It's also where a disproportionate level of the resources go, and also where they will do the least good. In those cases, they actually help perpetuate the cycle of poverty. If you are of able body and mind, poverty in this country is a choice.
Boost_Crazy wrote: In reply to HiTempguy: You guys are describing the exceptions to the rule. Unfortunately, you are also describing what most people think about when they think poor. It's also where a disproportionate level of the resources go, and also where they will do the least good. In those cases, they actually help perpetuate the cycle of poverty. If you are of able body and mind, poverty in this country is a choice.
You'll need to log in to post.
