Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Many of my colleagues (here in NY) have left the field of “school” teaching. Some have become pharmaceutical reps, others have gone into engineering, IT, sales, real estate. A couple of former colleagues have gone to higher ed. Teachers here get ten weeks in the summer. Most work some other kind of job. Many teach summer school to make ends meet. Teachers must have a Master’s Degree in NY that usually equates to six years of college. The degree often translates well to other fields, either in academia or in the professions. Many teach because they love to work with kids, and are also passionate about their fields of study. It is a unique work experience. The money doesn’t come for a long time, but often gets close to decent wage late in the career (read 30 years). The hook here is the pension. It averages 60%. No bonus, no matching in a 401k, no car, no expense account, no frequent flier miles, etc, etc. But there is the ten weeks plus school breaks (which are the most expensive times to travel all year long), and the pension. If one saves over a life time and has a spouse that works it is all good (at least here in NY).
Just to put some numbers out there. This is from United Teachers of Richmond(CA):
In 2008 there were 80,000 college students going into teaching credential programs in CA. In 2018 only 18,000 went into credentialing programs. Things need to change and all our communities need to realize the “shortage” is not just a crisis but an urgent social issue.
"According to a Labor Department report (obtained by the Wall Street Journal), teachers quit the profession in 2018 at the highest rate of any year on record. Roughly 1 million public education workers walked away that year, and experts predict those numbers will only get worse. The result is shortages of teachers in multiple states and a dropping number of education majors nationwide."
----
Obviously some people see them as babysitters.It's funny thought because I see a lot of parents that put their kids in private school and move them back to public school saying the education is the same. The thing that changes is the amount of money the parents put out and the size of classes. I wouldn't become a teacher but I have a half-sister who is planning to go in to education. Too bad. She is extremely intelligent but I couldn't talk her out of it. I suppose someone has to be young and ready to change the world. She lives in KS so at least her pay and the price of living won't be in such stark contrast as AZ. There are also a lot less ELA students and a pretty homogeneous population which makes it a bit easier to teach. At some point, it seems there will come a point when there just won't be enough teachers and then they will either be teacher 100 students or we will start paying them more. Let's see how it goes. This argument that we are a society of old isn't the best one. Even if you do have a bunch of old boomers running around, someone has to teach the kids so that they can go on to become nurses and urologist and whatever else will be in high demand. I hardly think everyone is suddenly going to home school their kids.
... someone has to teach the kids so that they can go on to become nurses and urologist and whatever else will be in high demand. I hardly think everyone is suddenly going to home school their kids.
Exactly. Today's kids are tomorrow's adults, running the country and everything else in everday life. They can not be idiots. The country can't really afford that. That goes not just for today, but at any point in the future. The kids of one day are the adults of the next.
You cannot rely on people having a passion for teaching in order to find good teachers. Not everyone can afford crappy pay, regardless of passion and ability. Either they don't have a well paid enough spouse, or rich parents, or whatever the case may be. They can have all the passion and ability in the world, but if it doesn't pay the bills, they're not going to do it. Not long term. Given that the stakes are so high - today's kids can't be the future's idiots, running the country - the pay needs to reflect the gravity of the situation. We're going for the long game here. Yes, parental involvement and a child's intrinsic motivation are important and go a long way. But, there aren't enough of those to compensate for the rest of the population who have disinterested parents, or no one interested and skilled enough to make the light bulb in their head click on some important concept.
Yes, parental involvement and a child's intrinsic motivation are important and go a long way. But, there aren't enough of those to compensate for the rest of the population who have disinterested parents, or no one interested and skilled enough to make the light bulb in their head click on some important concept.
IMO, parental involvement and a child's intrinsic motivation are about 99% of the outcome. No amount of money will compensate for lack of those two. I'm not saying teachers should be unappreciated or poorly compensated, or that run-down schools are fine, but I am saying the argument that more money should be spent to get a better student outcome doesn't really hold water. If a child has little intrinsic motivation for education and their parents tell them education doesn't matter (through actions and / or words), it doesn't matter how great the teacher is.
IMO, parental involvement and a child's intrinsic motivation are about 99% of the outcome. No amount of money will compensate for lack of those two. I'm not saying teachers should be unappreciated or poorly compensated, or that run-down schools are fine, but I am saying the argument that more money should be spent to get a better student outcome doesn't really hold water. If a child has little intrinsic motivation for education and their parents tell them education doesn't matter (through actions and / or words), it doesn't matter how great the teacher is.
The right teachers can overcome lack of parental involvement to a degree (even a large one), but class size is also a factor in that, so more one on one time or more time spent on a concept can be had.
The hope is that at least they won't be completely deficient. Hopefully more things that not may well stick in their mind. I had a Trig teacher in high school that spelled it all out so clearly, that people who had no business being in the class actually understood it and succeeded (setting aside the usefulness of this to 99% of people 99% of the time. The concept is the same).
And my comment was that AZ gets even worse results. That's a fair and appropriate comment.
The thread topic is "why is teacher pay so low in AZ?", so why did you bring up California at all?
Is it a case of you can't stick to the topic, but I must? Sorry, but you maligned my state, where I received an exceptional education. My reading comprehension is excellent.
Perhaps reading comprehension, like subtlety, simply eludes you?
I didn't bring up California, someone else did. Your reading comprehension isn't excellent, obviously.
If you want to talk CA and how well all their money spent is doing them then fine. Why do they test lower than AZ? Can you honestly say the money is well spent when, per dollar spent, we get DRASTICALLY better results?
We spend $8k per pupil, nearly the lowest in the country. Just looking at 8th grade math scores we beat the national average. California spends about 50% more per pupil at around $12k and for the extra money they get lower test scores in every category. If you look at those 8th grade math scores AZ averaged a 282, that's $28 per point; CA averaged 277 or $43 per point. They spend more a d get worse results, no question.
The only meaningful metric CA has AZ beat on is graduation rate and even that is easily explainable and more money spent on educators won't fix the issue. AZ has a higher poverty rate and poor children are much more likely to drop out of school out of necessity. Likewise, CA has more wealth, and the wealthy are much more likely to graduate high school.
California's problem with education can be summed up in one word: unions.
Unions there have screwed up the system so bad, that a teacher can get tenure after 2 years ONLY, and then be very hard to fire. That's it, full stop, why California teacher quality is very hit and miss. And the bad ones who can't be fired, drag down the morale of everyone around them trying to be their best.
Now I have no idea why AZ teacher pay is so low. Worth discussing, but you can't compare AZ to CA.
Apple and rotten oranges.
California's problem with education can be summed up in one word: unions.
Unions there have screwed up the system so bad, that a teacher can get tenure after 2 years ONLY, and then be very hard to fire. That's it, full stop, why California teacher quality is very hit and miss. And the bad ones who can't be fired, drag down the morale of everyone around them trying to be their best.
Now I have no idea why AZ teacher pay is so low. Worth discussing, but you can't compare AZ to CA.
Apple and rotten oranges.
As a high school teacher in California I would have to agree with you to a certain extent. Tenure should take longer to earn and the process of releasing inadequate instructors is difficult for certain. However in my thirteen years of teaching I would have to honestly tell you the number of inadequate teachers I have met is very low. In fact I would have to say eight out of ten are extremely hard working and passionate about the profession. So to merely blame the issues in California on the unions and more specifically horrible teachers is a little off the mark. Do I agree with the unions politics in regards to whom they back for candidates? Rarely do I agree with them for certain. Do I agree with the somewhat socialist type policies and practices they seem to endorse? Not a chance!!! I do however enjoy the benefits of having a union that fights for good teacher to student ratios and reasonable work loads in terms of extra responsibilities out of the classroom. Two things teachers in Arizona would love to have represented within a strong union.
As a high school teacher in California I would have to agree with you to a certain extent. Tenure should take longer to earn and the process of releasing inadequate instructors is difficult for certain. However in my thirteen years of teaching I would have to honestly tell you the number of inadequate teachers I have met is very low. In fact I would have to say eight out of ten are extremely hard working and passionate about the profession. So to merely blame the issues in California on the unions and more specifically horrible teachers is a little off the mark. Do I agree with the unions politics in regards to whom they back for candidates? Rarely do I agree with them for certain. Do I agree with the somewhat socialist type policies and practices they seem to endorse? Not a chance!!! I do however enjoy the benefits of having a union that fights for good teacher to student ratios and reasonable work loads in terms of extra responsibilities out of the classroom. Two things teachers in Arizona would love to have represented within a strong union.
I understand your point, but Arizona isn't big on unions, and many of us prefer it that way. The reasons stems from issues that aren't related to teachers & schools. Many blue collar/industrial type of jobs are union based, and we've seen the effects when workers go on strike for selfish things (higher salaries & extra benefits for doing the same job). Basic services are disrupted, people are left stranded & severely inconvenienced. The workers who cross picket lines because they need to work & earn a money have been threatened, harassed, and even victims of violent attacks. No thanks to unions!
IMO, parental involvement and a child's intrinsic motivation are about 99% of the outcome. No amount of money will compensate for lack of those two. I'm not saying teachers should be unappreciated or poorly compensated, or that run-down schools are fine, but I am saying the argument that more money should be spent to get a better student outcome doesn't really hold water. If a child has little intrinsic motivation for education and their parents tell them education doesn't matter (through actions and / or words), it doesn't matter how great the teacher is.
While I whole heartedly agree with the sentiment that parents are the overwhelming educators and when a child fails, it's particularly the fault of the parent(s), there's a cycle that needs to be overcome and broken in order to mitigate the future failure cycle. For instance, a child in school today who isn't being educated at home and isn't receiving a quality education at school will probably grow up to raise a child who isn't being educated at home and isn't receiving a quality education at school. In the U.S., we don't seem to view education as an investment into our future communities and our country. If we did, we wouldn't be content with the knowledge that inner-city schools are woefully underfunded compared to suburban community schools. For our own children, though, many of us are happy to see that investment in the form of $10,000 - $20,000 per year tuition rates at private institutions, but yeah, we can't imagine a tax hike for public schools in our community for fear of it being wasted on "administrative costs".
We are our own worst enemies when it comes to investing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
