Public school teachers are paid more — about 11 percent more — than the average professional worker, concludes a Manhattan Institute study based on Bureau of Labor Statistics data. Furthermore, higher teacher pay is not associated with higher student achievement.
The average public school teacher earned $34.06 per hour in 2005, according to the BLS, which estimates full-time public teachers average 36.5 hours a week during the school year. They earn 61 percent more per hour than private teachers, who work a slightly longer week.
Compared with public school teachers, editors and reporters earn 24% less; architects, 11% less; psychologists, 9% less; chemists, 5% less; mechanical engineers, 6% less; and economists, 1% less.
Compared with public school teachers, airplane pilots earn 186% more; physicians, 80% more; lawyers, 49% more; nuclear engineers, 17% more; actuaries, 9% more; and physicists, 3% more.
Among urban teachers, Detroit, San Francisco and New York City teachers make the most. Greensboro and Raleigh, North Carolina are the chintziest cities.
The BLS counted hours teachers work at school. Half of teachers told the survey they take work home, as did 30 percent of all professional workers. One of the problems with teacher pay is that teachers who do hours of extra work preparing new lessons and grading papers don’t earn any more for it than teachers who work only the scheduled hours. Hard work isn’t rewarded. Neither is excellent work, of course.
> Hard work isn’t rewarded. Neither is
> excellent work, of course.
Yet, public school teachers are paid more — about 11 percent more — than the average professional worker, concludes a Manhattan Institute study based on Bureau of Labor Statistics data.
Seems like teachers are well compensated, without having to work hard.
If this study doesn’t consider benefits and pensions, then the actual compensation paid to workers is understated. My school district recently released data that indicated that the average cost of teachers was more than $93,000. When one adds in 30-40 years of pension and retirement health benefits for the teacher and spouse, this comes to a sizeable sum. In some scenarios, one can show that a teacher can make more in retirement and during her working years.
Wayne is certainly right that fringe benefits (generous health insurance and pensions plus additional days off) are greater for teachers than for the average college grad. worker. On the other hand, teachers (except perhsps for gym) work more than their 36.5 average time in school — grading papers, writing recommendations, contacting parents, planning lessons, etc.
In any case, if we had too few internal municipal auditors , we’d raise the pay in that job category until we had enough applicants to fill the vacancies. We need to raise the pay of science teachers, math teachers, special ed teachers and some foreign language teachers — but probably not the pay of gym or history or English teachers for which there are many more applicants than job openings.
Cuts the other way as well, of course. If the supply of applicants outweighs the demand then pay-rate should go down.
But the price-setting function of the marketplace is not allowed to function due to civil service pay schedules and union contracts. Since the price-setting function isn’t allowed to operate, the remaining question is whether prices have been set artificially low or artificially high.
Since a union could hardly survive by bargaining for below-market pay rates my conclusion is that, on average, teachers are overpaid.
“which estimates full-time public teachers average 36.5 hours a week during the school year”
I don’t see how this is possible. At the public high school near me,
a typical day begins at 8:05 and ends at 3:25. This is a bit more than seven hours. Even assuming that the teachers get 1 hour off for lunch, this is still a six hour day. Then you need time to prepare for class and time to grade homework.
I expect that the time for 1-8 is similar, although maybe with a different breakdown (slightly less class time, but having to prepare for more subjects).
-Mark Roulo
These comparisons are not terribly meaningful, because most professions have very wide differences in pay *within* the profession. For example:
“Compared with public school teachers, airplane pilots earn 186% more”…depends which airplane pilots you are talking about. An airline pilot with seniority may earn $150K, but someone flying the midnight freight may be paid more like $30K. Ditto for a first officer on a commmuter airline.
This data doesn’t smell right, anyhow: I doubt that the *average* pilot makes more than the *average* physician or nuclear engineer.
I’ve always thought the “oh, but teachers have to do extra work at home grading papers and making lesson plans” argument was entirely weak.
What professional job DOESN’T require taking work home? There are lots and lots of us out there who put in 40 or 50 hours at the office AND another six or eight at home every week. I’ve worked at companies where salried employees routinely put in 60 hour weeks for at least part of the year.
Teachers have all summer to take courses, upgrade their skills and do other training (my father got his master’s degree during his summers off). The rest of us have to do our professional development during evenings and weekends.
36.5 hours/week is about right for the on-the-clock time, but utterly ridiculous for the majority of teachers that take work home with them. However, so do other professionals. $34/hour x 36.5 hr/week x 52 weeks/year is about $65,000 annual salary. That’s pretty good pay for most college graduates, and teachers’ benefit packages are certainly more valuable than most professionals’.
But the big problem is that teachers belong to unions, which make sure that the teacher who uses her free periods and stays after school tutoring the kids that are falling behind, spends several hours a day at home grading papers and preparing lesson plans, and comes in early to review and get ready for the day’s lessons is paid just the same as a deadhead of the same seniority who does the absolute minimum of work. And they make sure that the teacher who is a highly effective communicator makes the same pay as the teacher who can’t explain anything to the understanding of her students.
If you belong to an organization that makes sure you get the same pay as the laziest and least competent colleagues, you shouldn’t be surprised to be paid like you were lazy and marginally incompetent…
“The data presented here are drawn entirely from BLS reports. All the mean hourly earnings figures reported here are for full-time workers and exclude the value of benefits such as health care, life insurance, and pensions.”
The report also then shows the effective wage rate adjusted to average annual hours of other occupations.
Not only does the amount spent between schools have a weak correlation with their educational outcomes, which teachers get the most money within schools has almost nothing to do with the outcomes of their students. It is a function of time on the job and education credits. Attracting and keeping teaching excellence into such an environment isn’t easy. Teacher’s unions prevent society from spending our money to buy the best education we can for our children.
My wife the Chemistry teacher gets to work at 630 and never leaves before 4 pm. Add 2 hours minimum at night at home and 5 hours minimum on the weekends and you get a minimum 60 hour week. And the schedule is relentless. Yes, the vacation is nice but there is at least two weeks of work at home when school is not in session.
I know of teachers who arrive every day at 8 and leave at 330 and for all I know they don’t even own a briefcase.
This issue of “off-the-clock†work can not be written off as bogus, but it’s difficult to believe that all first grade teachers spend 60 hours a week in the execution of their work-related responsibilities. The question is “how much is requiredâ€, and how much is “optionalâ€. While it’s reasonable to expect that some high-school teachers become involved in after-school sponsorships, how many actually do? Some subjects provide more opportunity for homework than others, such as math and physics. English offers the opportunity for a lot of writing, which requires some involvement by the instructor in evaluating the work. These days, however, word processors offer spelling checkers, and as we say with the on-line validation software, there are a number of ways for teachers to reduce the time required to read papers. On-line grade administration software is now available for teachers to maintain their “grade booksâ€, and well-done, end-of-year grades could be computed and turned in to school administrators, reducing the amount of work required “off-the-clockâ€.
And then there is the issue of time management. There is no reason to believe that every teacher is a good time manager. Certainly many suffer from poor time management skills, just like the rest of us.
Just because someone spends 60 hours a week on a job, doesn’t mean that the job requires 60 hours a week to do. Further, one has to ask: does the pay scale reflect the understanding that some number of hours are required “off-the-clock� This is certainly something every teacher should be able to answer, if they have taken their salary negotiations with their school district meaningfully.
I’m not sure that unions are as common as people think they are. The following link provides any overview of what states are “right to work” states, which would limit the influence of teaching unions, especially if the working conditions are as good as this thread makes them appear.
http://www.nrtw.org/rtws.htm
Do the states with unions have better or worse educational systems than those without?
If you controlled for cost of living, how different are the pay and benefits in union and non-union states?
I want to point out that online grade books actually often increase the time it takes to manage grades. Many teachers were already using grading programs; the online ones are often inferior in terms of ease of use and data that can be analyzed.
And although you might think that online grade books would help reduce the need to address or respond to parents’ questions, that’s not the case.
(Do you think online banking increases or decreases the amount of time spent overall on accounts? If no additional employees were hired to answer inquiries or handle technical issues, do you imagine bank employees would have more or less time to devote to customers at the bank during the work day? When would these inquires need to be addressed if bank employees were busy with other work for 5/6 of the day?)
There are many reasons why online grade programs may be a really bad idea in terms of the lessons that they teach kids and parents about grades and school, which didn’t seem as evident before online grading, but that’s a different theoretical conversation.
The real take-away from this study is how much airline pilots make. It’s completely ridiculous. They hardly work at all. I mean, they work during take offs, landings, and taxing, and the computer does all the rest. So what’s that, like 30 minutes per flight? Maybe a few hours a day? Those damn pilots are stealing money!
No one should be paid so much for working so little, no matter how important, how fundamentally important those actual minutes are.
> And although you might think that online grade books would
> help reduce the need to address or respond to parents’ questions,
> that’s not the case.
There isn’t enough information here to understand the point. However, here’s some information from vendors of these products:
http://www.mygradebook.com/
http://www.gradebooks4teachers.com/
“This may be the most valuable investment you make this year. For ten years I taught without an electronic gradebook and I am embarrassed to admit that I spent endless hours each year calculating grades. Five years ago I discovered a simple software program and cut my grading time by 75%. I have since moved on to an even more advanced system and I can’t believe I ever did this with a pencil, paper and calculator. There are many programs to choose from, so make a choice and save yourself some time and aggravation!!” – Miranda Blair (Classroom Teacher – R. J. Lee Elementary School)
It’s possible that some teachers who are frightened by technology might claim that these sorts of tools don’t work, or are hard to use. Getting people to start using these sorts of tools with the goal in mind to reduce their work load isn’t always easy, but work load reduction can generally be demonstrated unless the nature of the job increasing in complexity because of the power of the tools.
If you controlled for cost of living, how different are the pay and benefits in union and non-union states?
Interesting question, but remember that:
1) Most right-to-work states still have teachers’ unions
2) Public employees’ unions tend to be fairly powerful even in right-to-work states because of high membership and ability to deliver lots of votes.
3) Teachers’ strikes are still fairly rare even in non right-to-work states
Obviously, as you say, cost of living is important. NYC and SF have FAR higher cost of living than Greensboro.
I make $34,152 a year in my eighth year of teaching. I average a 50 hour work week, and that’s with my time off. Figure that one essay from my 140 students will take 23 hours to grade, if I spend 10 minutes per essay, reading, responding, recording grades, and organizing the paperwork to set up before and/or after school tutoring for those who need it. In eight years, I have gone from a starting salary of $25,000, through two legislature mandated raises totalling $5,000 ($2,000 one year, $3,000 most recently), one year where teachers in my district received a $100 dollar raise (for the entire year), most others where we receive between $200 and $500 raises (for the entire year). If the Manhatan Institute thinks that this is how to obtain, groom, and retain the best teachers possible, perhaps we should reexamine their ability to put together a logical study, much less execute one and interpret its meaning.
As for the collective bargaining bashers, I have not seen any merit pay programs based on how hard the teachers actually work. The ones I have seen are based primarily on test score results. Since test scores are determined more by student performance during a time period representing .01 percent of total school attendance, it makes sense that merit pay isn’t something we’re all ready to roll out the carpet for. I am in a unique position in that the classes I teach include our “top performing” students as well as our lowest performing. If merit pay were based on the first group, I’d make out like a bandit. If it were based on the latter, not so much. Ironically, it is the latter group of students who would actually require more time and effort and yet I would not be compensated for it.
The median wage in the United States is 43,318. Summers or not, does it seem correct that over half of the workers in the United States have work more valuable than mine as a teacher?
Good teachers work many more hours than this study reports, and it seems to make sense to work toward rewarding the best in the profession rather than punishing everyone for the shortcomings of a few bad apples. Perhaps the Manhattan Institute should spend more time researching where the money to pay teachers could be found in state and federal budgets and less time trying to arrange a study to prove that we’re paid too much.
> I make $34,152 a year in my eighth year of teaching.
Well, not exactly. Assuming that you actually work 186 days a year (districts in California work between 180-186 days yearly), this salary annualizes to $45903.23.
> The median wage in the United States is $43,318.
So, the teacher annualizes out at a slightly higher wage ($2,600) than the median wage earner. In addition, the teacher most likely enjoys benefits of about 30% of salary, which increases the total cost-to-compensate (and is the total benefit to the teacher) of $59,674. Not all wage earners receive benefits, which is particularly true for self-employed. Teachers are free to work summer school sessions, or find other forms of employment to increase their salaries during their summers off.
The teacher didn’t seem to provide all of the financial data about her compensation package that is relevant.
> does it seem correct that over half of the workers in the United
> States have work more valuable than mine as a teacher?
Well, if you have a fire, do you call a teacher? If you need a burglar in your home, do you call a teacher? If you have a broken arm, do you call a teacher? When there is a national emergency, do teachers drop what they are doing and man the front lines?
Given that we are seeing a 30% dropout rate in US schools, and NAEP scores for reading that indicate somewhere between 40-60 percent of US students are barely reading at grade, or are reading below grade, the question becomes how much should we be paying for these services?
> As for the collective bargaining bashers, I have not seen any merit pay programs based on how hard the teachers actually work. The ones I have seen are based primarily on test score results.
We don’t care how hard you work. You’re being paid for results. If it’s too much effort for you, perhaps you should be doing something that you’re effective at.
BTW – Do you really want to argue that ditch diggers should make more than you do? Hmm – they seem to understand that they’re not being paid for effort but for ditches dug.
Andy, I don’t understand your anger and I certainly didn’t intend to evoke that type of response. I do understand the need to pay people for results (and if you read what I wrote, you’d see that I do get results – even my ELL students progress, on average, 3 to 6 grades in the course of a year in my classroom. However, the test they take does not measure progress, it measures whether they test at a specific level – regardless of the progress they’ve made. My advanced students, partially through what they bring to the classroom and partially as a result of my teaching, score well above required norms). My issue with merit pay is not that it’s based on results, its that the examples I have seen pay on based, primarily, on tests given over two days of schooling – .01% of a school year. I’m not sure that is a good indicator of how much students have learned or accomplished or how well teachers have taught for a year. Now I will say something which is intended to evoke a little ire on your part – your comments seem based in a bitter, envious attitude, perhaps about the parameters and demands of your own job – perhaps you, actually shoud try something you may not be good at but would find easy to do and so high paying … teaching.
Wayne, your comment is definitely thought-provoking, and actually, I’d be very interested in working year-round, earning time off “as I go” which could be taken throughout the year rather than at prescribed times. I could, then actually take home the sum you came up with. My husband has been with the same company for five years now as a middle manager, and earns 3 hours per week plus seven holidays, equalling out to a little under four weeks per year “straight” vacation. I don’t know how this would play out with students and parents and subsitute teachers, but if it gets a few more members of the public on board regarding teachers, their pay, and what they actually earn, I’m interested. You also asked about benefits (which I understand vary widely from state to state). Right now, by law, I donate $182 twice a month to the teachers retirement system in my state. We don’t have any company matching 401K, stock options, etc. (it’s fine – but just to keep an even picture). My health insurance is paid for, correct – but is the median wage we’re using including benefits, and does the Manhattan Institute include the benefits in the figures it uses for comparison?
It still seems like the Manhattan Institute and many who post here are much more irrational than logical in their attempts to examine how to improve public education. It seems like many of us are trying to build a proverbial better “table” of education, but some are more interested in using what should be legs as clubs. These questions, when dealt with from a position of actually wanting to build, can make great legs for a table which could be quite a bit less wobbly. If you pick it up as a club, however, and start swinging … not much progress is going to be made.
If people could reach agreement about what results they wanted, teachers would be more likely to deliver them. But as things stand now, teachers are expected to be everything to everyone, and that’s hard to deliver.
> I donate $182 twice a month to the teachers retirement
> system in my state. We don’t have any company matching
> 401K, stock options, etc.
Assuming 3 percent CPI and a working life of 30 years, this retirement contribution will come to about $164,000. Assuming 30 years of retired life, and a retirement “salary†of $50,000 from the Teachers’ Retirement Fund, the draw will be $1.5M, a short life or a smaller retirement “salary†might see the teacher retiree draw less than $1.5M. (In my school district, the average retiree exit salary after 30 years of teaching is $89,000.) So, a $160K “contribution†yields at retirement “benefit†of $1-2M.
The value of 401K, or stock option programs, is an unknown, unlike the “defined benefit†programs which have come to become an financial burden on school districts and taxpayers.
> is the median wage we’re using including benefits,
> and does the Manhattan Institute include the benefits
> in the figures it uses for comparison?
Wages do not include benefits. Most companies, and certainly few school systems, make an effort to identify the cost-of-benefits to their employees, say, on the pay checks, or via a year-end statement of compensation. Most people are shocked to learn that up to 30% of their salaries are paid in terms of “benefitsâ€. This 30% is just an average by the way, as some employers pay more.
> It still seems like the Manhattan Institute and many who post
> here are much more irrational than logical in their attempts to
> examine how to improve public education.
There seems to be a clear line in the sand between people in the “system†and those of us on the outside, looking in. The US education system is consuming $1T a year—about 7.5% of the US GDP, and has been for about 30 years now. Yet, we see 30% dropout rate and up to 60 per cent of US students reading at BASIC, BELOW BASIC or FAR BELOW BASIC reading skills, which impact all other aspects of education. The only response from educations is—“more money, more money, more moneyâ€. Additionally, there is a resistance to be accountable for the use of the money and authority already demanded by educators. There is every reason to be angry when you look at things in this light. The idea that folks see us as “irrational†for thinking this way is one of the reasons for the anger.
Let’s review:
>>> As for the collective bargaining bashers, I have not seen any merit pay programs based on how hard the teachers actually work.
That’s a complaint that teachers don’t get paid based on how hard they work. Its author may not like that characterization, but she chose her argument.
> Andy, I don’t understand your anger and I certainly didn’t intend to evoke that type of response.
I’m not angry. I’m short-cutting a discussion that has played out numerous times.
> My issue with merit pay is not that it’s based on results, its that the examples I have seen pay on based, primarily, on tests given over two days of schooling – .01% of a school year. I’m not sure that is a good indicator of how much students have learned or accomplished or how well teachers have taught for a year.
Above is the standard “I’m all for merit pay but those methods aren’t good”. The discussion bogs after I respond with.
“Fair enough. Please propose a reasonably objective method of evaluating the difference that individual teachers make in student achievement, a method that you will accept being used to make salary and hire/fire decisions.
Yes, I realize that some students are less capable than others. Feel free to factor that into the proposed method.”
Here’s where it will end. There will be some back-and-forth, repeating that pay for results is okay, but some method is flawed (big deal – the fact that there’s a dumb way to approach a problem does not imply that there are no good ways) and a demand that I propose a method.
However, nothing more of substance will actually come out. We’ll end with “It’s okay in theory to compensate teachers based on their performance but there’s no acceptable-to-teachers implementation of that theory.”
> your comments seem based in a bitter, envious attitude,
Not at all. But, thanks for suggesting that believing that teachers should be treated like everyone else is evidence of some problem.
> It still seems like the Manhattan Institute and many who post here are much more irrational than logical in their attempts to examine how to improve public education.
The above contains an interesting error.
“Improving public education” isn’t society’s goal.
Society’s goal is to effectively educate kids. The public education system is one way to try to accomplish that goal, but it isn’t the only possible way. And, society doesn’t have any interest in preserving any specific feature of public education, no matter how much its advocates like said feature.
The burden for improving public education must be borne soley by those who want to use public education to accomplish society’s goal of effectively educating kids.
It isn’t our job to make public education work. If public education advocates can’t make it work, too bad for public education.
BTW – Since it’s important to Debbie, I’ll concede that I’m a bad person and that she’s a good person. However, I’ll note that she chose to argue our relative virtue rather than dispute whether I was correct.
I didn’t realize I needed to make sure we agree on one basic tenet … free, effective education for any (at least most?) of the children in the United States who want it or have parents who want it for them enough to make them show up and take part. Yes? No? This is a serious question on my part.
I wrote “Society’s goal is to effectively educate kids.”
What is Debbie’s objection to that goal? Does she not want educated kids? Does she object to “effective”? Is she objecting to my imputing a goal to society?
Well, there are several pretty easy ways to begin to make testing a more useful measure of “results.” Currently, every state has its own test — and sets its own standards for those “basic” and “below basic” ratings, as well as those for “proficient” and “advanced.” So, a proficient kid in one state might well test as below basic in another. This is all just crazy.
Secondly, tests are given in each grade, as Debbie noted. I’d love to see some sort of ongoing testing process. That is, that a child who tested at level Z last testing session, next takes a test starting at level Z and getting progressively harder. Another child in that class might have tested at level T and would start at that point and continue on into harder material. THEN, we’d know if that teacher had actually moved any specific child ahead — and by how much. A child starting school 2-3 years behind another child who gains 2.5 years of learning in that year of schooling (pretty good, eh?) will still test out as lower — lower than grade level and lower than that other child. That level T child is likely to have progressed at least a year or more too. But, as Debbie pointed out, as tests stand now, if they tested “advanced” to start with — there’s no way to see if they just coasted the next year or if they are more advanced.
IF you could come up with this sort of testing, and made it nationally normed and required it of private school students as well. Well, then, I’d be behind your idea of merit pay for test scores. And I’m not even a teacher yet.
> IF you could come up with this sort of testing, and made it nationally normed and required it of private school students as well. Well, then, I’d be behind your idea of merit pay for test scores. And I’m not even a teacher yet.
I don’t understand why “required of private school students” is important. The goal is to pay public school teachers for their performance. The relative performance of someone else doesn’t seem particularly relevant.
We’ve already found out that public school teachers will not accept any performance test from outsiders. So, you’ll have to provide ones that said teachers are willing to accept.
“Hard work isn’t rewarded. Neither is excellent work, of course.” How did I MISS that? I run into, on average, 2 former students per week who tell me how glad they are that I was their teacher and go on to share some specific example; “easy A” in freshman composition, majoring in technical writing and now working in that field, deciding to become a teacher themselves, etc. Of course there’s “the usual” daily observations of students learning a new concept, getting interested in improving their writing, gaining confidence in their ability to analyze and discuss what they read. We ARE rewarded, just not monetarily. Or at least, so I thought, until Manhattan Institute deigned to enlighten me. What a relief; and here, all this time, I thought the work I did (or, to make Andy happy, the results I got) deserved better pay.
Which reminds me … I need to tell our Pre-Engineering elective teacher to encourage his students to reconsider their goals of becoming engineers or architectures. Why do that when they could enter the so much more lucrative field of teaching? I am amazed that more editors, reporters, psychologists and chemists aren’t beating a path to the alternative certification door. Obviously, it’s one of the best-kept secrets in the world.
It may say 9:42 pm on the time/date stamp, but it was wee hours of the a.m. here. I should know better than to read and write at that hour. At any rate “easy A” is because my class prepared them for college freshman composition (not an easy A in my class). Architecture should be architect. Wanting to be an architecture when you grow up may actually be quite lucrative if you could pull it off.
Debbie, I’m on your side. I take issue with statements made here that do not show a clear understanding of what is happening in our classrooms, or our schools. Most teachers stay, not because of financial gain, but because of intrinsic rewards. We talk about our pay and compensation because we have homes, cars, children to educate, and dreams, just like other people. We signed on to a profession wrought with problems, believing we could make a difference. We work day in and day out, and see our jobs being eroded by additional paperwork, additional planning, and additional administrative duties. We watch as the government adds on more and more requirements to staying in our profession, from tests and continuing education, to becoming technology experts and behavior managers.
Teachers cannot just get another job during the summer, especially if we teach at year-round schools that spread out “vacation” time throughout the year. We also have staff development, planning, and preparation time during these “vacations,” so our time off is strictly limited. Also, I am required to stay after school for meetings, conferences, and other school functions. Since most parents work, I must be available when they get off work. I’ve been at school since 7 a.m., and I’m staying until 8 or 9 p.m. two to three nights a week. Frequently parents do not show, do not call and the meeting has to be rescheduled, requiring me to stay another night. By the time I finish all the conferences, it’s almost time to start them again.
We don’t get normal “vacation time,” sick days, or personal days at my school like my husband does at his job. One school system I worked for actually docked my pay for my substitute when I was sick! I do not get a lunch minute, forget a lunch hour. My class eats in our classroom, and I heat their food in a tiny microwave because we do not have a lunch program or cafeteria. We do not have music or art teachers, so I integrate these specialized subjects into my lessons. These subjects require specialized skills which I do not possess.
I admire first grade teachers; they have an enormous load to bear. These amazing people teach your children how to read, probably the single most important skill they will learn in their life. First grade teachers take tiny 5 and 6 year old children whose knowledge may or may not include their alphabet and basic sounds, and turn them into little happy readers. If you have never witnessed this, you need to go to your nearest first grade class and spend several months observing what goes on. It is utterly amazing. The amount of preparation it takes to do this for 20 or so kids who are all on different levels, requiring separate plans for each child, is just short of phenomenal.
In my fourth grade class I have students who are still learning to read basic sight words, and students who can read anything I put in front of them. I have students who cannot learn math unless they are moving, and students who are ready for high school algebra. I have a student who can create the most well written essay you could hope to read, except she cannot control her fingers well enough to write on a piece of paper.
Not only do children come to school with varying abilities, they come to school with various learning styles that have to be addressed. I have to teach each lesson to reach eight different ways of learning, which is why I spend eight to ten hours every weekend working on planning and preparation. I have to create most of my materials, due to lack of textbooks. I spend about $2500 of my own money each year supplementing my classroom in one way or another.
Another problem we face in schools is students who come to school hungry, exhausted, abused, and neglected. I’ve bought students school supplies, clothing, and food. I’ve provided transportation when a student’s parent couldn’t come because they didn’t have a car seat for an infant sibling. I’ve stayed at school until 7:30 at night when the family of three students “forgot” who was supposed to pick them up, and didn’t answer their phones when I called.
The comment about teachers being afraid of technology is ludicrous. We are required to become competent in using technology as part of our preparation. We were required to use grading software in the schools in my district. The grading software had bugs in it and routinely crashed just before report cards were due. To compensate for that possibility, we had to keep double books, so I’m sure you can imagine what a time saving device that turned out to be.
I agree with Debbie’s observation that the critics of paying teachers a fair salary seem bitter and angry. (Ok, at least irritated and frustrated). I wonder why education seems to be the focus of their criticism when there are so many other government programs that suck the coffers dry with even fewer benefits. Why do there seem to be so many negative comments made about education, when there are so many shining examples of good teaching, like Debbie’s example? There are plenty of schools in our country that use their money wisely, that make sound educational and financial decisions that enhance student learning, and that serve their communities well. Let’s have a more positive focus, maybe we will have more positive outcomes.
> I agree with Debbie’s observation that the critics of paying teachers a fair salary seem bitter and angry.
Ah yes, there’s nothing wrong with public schools that higher teacher salaries wouldn’t fix.
Feel free to tell us how we can say that we think that you’re paid more than you deliver without being called bitter and angry.
Remember, we’re forced to pay your salaries, so don’t point to folks who you feel are overpaid that are being paid by volunteers. Moreover, since you’re accepting the salaries, they’re clearly adequate.
BTW – If you successfully make the argument that teachers should be paid more to attract higher quality teachers, the current ones won’t be the ones getting more money. See if you can figure out why.
I just talked with a parent who showed me the fundraising kick-off letter for 06 at her child’s school. She’d worked hard on the 05 stuff and raised a lot of money and was looking forward to hearing where it went.
The 06 letter said that the 05 money went for a some of expensive outdoor benches. (She knew the total raised, the letter said how many, so simple arithmetic tells us the price per bench, which we can compare to comparable items at Home Depot.) She looked around the school and didn’t see any new benches, so she asked “where are the expensive new benches that the 06 money bought?”
It’s Feb 07 and they still haven’t been able to show her those benches.
> I wonder why education seems to be the focus of their criticism when there are so many other government programs that suck the coffers dry with even fewer benefits.
This is an education blog, so it’s somewhat unreasonable to expect discussion of other things here. But, I do appreciate being told what I find important and what I should find important.
However, thanks for demonstrating the innumeracy that is so common among public school advocates. About half of CA’s tax revenues go to public education. CA may have a bit higher percentage than other states, but no other area is even close, so there’s no room for one other govt program that wastes as much money as public education, let alone “many”.
i have a question and this appears to be a good place in which to ask it. i would like to teach as a profession and i am debating on being a gym teacher or a math teacher. i was just wondering if pay rates are typically different between these two fields say in your first year of teaching, 5th year, 10th year, etc. i would greatly appreciate as much information as possible. thank you for your time and consideration.