why are 90% schools in OHIO rated "Excellent" or above? (Kent: credit, how much)

[todundmaiden]

First of all, the scorecards do not make sense to anyone if 90% of the schools are rated "excellent" or higher. If everything is so good, why do we need the score cards. Secondly, there is high interest from the teacher's unions and school administrations to rate every school as high as possible. The reason is to justify their high salary, because it appears that they've done a great job. But let's ask us a question, are the kids in OHIO really better educated than the kids from Indiana, Michigan and Kentucky, where the teachers' pay is a lot lower comparatively? Any comment?

[Cleveland_Collector]

I believe the rankings are based on an independent, national standardized test. While I wholeheartedly disagree with that type of ranking system, you can't really point to teachers or the union that represents them as the deciding factor of what these scores are other than by giving them a lot of credit for preparing much of the state's student body quite well for it. They didn't dream it up and they don't score it. They just deal with the fact that they have to teach to it.

Teachers are degreed professionals and should be paid as such. Also, if teaching was such a cushy, cakewalk of a job, why aren't college students flocking towards the profession? That's because the job is difficult, the salary is lacking compared to other professions which require similar education, and, as exhibited by the tone of this thread's OP, the job is completely thankless.

[todundmaiden]

There is no way the rankings are based on a national standardized test, and there is no such a test. Each state has its own ranking system, which could be potentially influenced by some special interest in that state. You just can't make stuff up. Secondly, I have every respect for those teaching professionals. Their jobs are demanding, however just like everyone else's job. Whatever job you choose to do, you have to be good at it in order to be competitive. My question was: how are their salaries justified? If a kindergarten teacher in Ohio makes about $100,000 a year, and a similar job in Indiana only pays half of it, how do you justify the big difference? I would only take it if the students in Ohio are twice better in their acdemics, or with some other metrics... However, the fact is that public education in Ohio isn't getting any better except for what is shown in the score cards.

[Dewddd]

A kindergarten teacher making $100,000 a year. I realize it's just an example but that sounds extremely absurd. The average salary for a teacher in Ohio is just over $40,000. Every estimate I see from every other state is right around that range. These teachers go to college for 4 years minimum to deal with bad behaving kids, parents who dont appreciate them plus all the lesson planning, grading, etc. and time outside of the classroom that they have to spend to get work done.

I think the current system is too lenient (and they're changing it), they fo over much more than just a standardized test. They consist of the OAA, OGT, graduation rates, attendance rates and a few other things.
Either next school year, or the one after that they will begin to go on an A - F system that would take a few more things into consideration before the district and building get a final grade.

[Dewddd]

Here's a list of the average salaries for teachers in surrounding states.
Starting. Average
Ohio $41,670 $56,715
Indiana $38,670 $50,801
Pennsylvania $47,780 $60,760
Michigan $47,440 $63,940
Kentucky $35,640 $48,908

Kentucky being the outlier due to it's slightly lower cost of living, I really don't see what tou mean.

[bam989863]

I have taught in Ohio and Texas and from my experiences the teachers in Ohio are more qualified, more likely to have an advanced degree, and students in Ohio tend to be getting a better education. These are my own experiences having taught at 2 different public schools in each state. I also made nearly identical pay in each state where one had a teacher's union while the other was a right to work state. In Texas you can teach without having a specialized subject, teachers graduate from college with a generalist degree and move into teaching before specializing, in Ohio you have to be specialized before graduating from college. In Texas student teaching is not required, in Ohio one semester of student teaching is mandatory. In Ohio a teacher must pass the Praxis II exam before earning a 2 year license, within two years the teacher must complete the Praxis III exam in order to earn a 5 year license. In Texas a teacher must only pass a paper and pencil multiple choice exam before getting a 5 year license. These are some of the differences I noticed off the top of my head but it has been my experience that Ohio on the whole has very good teachers and very good schools.

[Cleveland_Collector]

Originally Posted by todundmaiden

There is no way the rankings are based on a national standardized test, and there is no such a test. Each state has its own ranking system, which could be potentially influenced by some special interest in that state. You just can't make stuff up.

NCLB contains a national standard called the NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress). All state tests are gauged against it. Nobody is making anything up. You just don't understand it very well.

Secondly, I have every respect for those teaching professionals. Their jobs are demanding, however just like everyone else's job. Whatever job you choose to do, you have to be good at it in order to be competitive.

Not really. In the average corporate monolith, a high percentage of people rise to their own level of incompetence and are paid very well to boot.

My question was: how are their salaries justified?

In the way everyone most working people's salaries are. They negotiate a salary and benefits.

If a kindergarten teacher in Ohio makes about $100,000 a year, and a similar job in Indiana only pays half of it, how do you justify the big difference?

I justify it by first saying that you have no idea what you're talking about.

I would only take it if the students in Ohio are twice better in their acdemics, or with some other metrics... However, the fact is that public education in Ohio isn't getting any better except for what is shown in the score cards.

And how, pray tell, have you quantified any of this? Did you pull this out of your butt just like you did the above salary numbers or do you actually have something substantive to offer about it?

[Cleveland_Collector]

Originally Posted by Dewddd

A kindergarten teacher making $100,000 a year. I realize it's just an example but that sounds extremely absurd.

Well, that's because it is.

[Rumble]

Original poster needs to post a link to see if he/she is even comparing apples to apples with other states in terms of testing performance.

Secondly, it's not exactly like teacher's salaries have been some closely guarded secret. People have known approximately how much they make for decades and yet people still CHOOSE to get into the profession. Theoretically, if less qualified people were choosing education as a career, there would be a shortage, which would drive wages up. I have no pity for teachers that complain about their wages and benefits.

[Natural510]

In a perfect world, school teachers would be making six figures.