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.
Yes, but the U.S. is a capitalist society; people are usually paid according to the revenue that they generate rather than on "merit." There is only so much money that can be funneled into schools; they don't generate revenues like other financial endeavors.
It's all well and good to say that admins "should" be paid higher salaries, but that means less money going someplace else (students, classrooms, teachers, etc.). Hence, low pay is a matter of necessity unless you want your taxes raised, and most people don't.
It would be a wonderful day when we all invested in schools the way that we invest in entertainment. Then, admins, teachers, nurses and janitors would get paid the kind of salaries that go to movie, television stars and pro athletes.
True, however, schools are not able to generate money but they still need top people to lead them so they can produce corporate CEO's, etc.
The percentage of a superintendents salary compared to the rest of a school budget is insignificant in reality. Even doubling that salary will have a insignificant impact on most school budgets. What NEEDS to happen is that people need to be educated on what things really cost to run a school. Have you bought a text book lately, have you filled up the gas tank of a school bus lately? How about a desk, have you bought a desk lately?? Now multiply those by however many kids in your school district. To buy an averaged price textbook just for the high school kids in our school district comes out to about $150,000--that would be for ONE class (say math). Each fill of the gas tank for a bus is about $300 multiply that time however many buses you have--our schools run about 20 buses on 5 routes each day, that is over $1,000,000 just in gas to get the kids back and forth to school each day, and that is being conservative.
True, however, schools are not able to generate money but they still need top people to lead them so they can produce corporate CEO's, etc.
The percentage of a superintendents salary compared to the rest of a school budget is insignificant in reality. Even doubling that salary will have a insignificant impact on most school budgets. What NEEDS to happen is that people need to be educated on what things really cost to run a school. Have you bought a text book lately, have you filled up the gas tank of a school bus lately? How about a desk, have you bought a desk lately?? Now multiply those by however many kids in your school district. To buy an averaged price textbook just for the high school kids in our school district comes out to about $150,000--that would be for ONE class (say math). Each fill of the gas tank for a bus is about $300 multiply that time however many buses you have--our schools run about 20 buses on 5 routes each day, that is over $1,000,000 just in gas to get the kids back and forth to school each day, and that is being conservative.
Well, the fact that schools can't generate revenues is just the problem. And while a super or admin's salary may be small in comparison, it is still a lot of money to shell out. I imagine that the salaries of all admins and supers combined would be equivalent to that of all the teachers in a district if you were to add it up. Imagine how many more teachers could be hired if salaries were capped?
And yes, I know how much it costs but that really only justifies a cap on salaries all the more--to ensure that the majority of school funds go to classrooms, teachers and students rather than administrators. Frankly, I think that it would be great to give teachers more responsibility and higher pay, and I think many would go for it (I know I certainly would). Instead of sending them to the proncipal, make them sit in the corner wearing a dunce cap; that sure would be cheaper than paying an admin a six-figure salary.
I actually think that teachers currently carry much more liability and risk than admins and, yet, are paid 1/4 what an admin is paid; in fact, the MO of most admins is "don't come to me unless absolutely necessary" and then the teachers are treated like PITA incompetents if they need an admin. So why have them?
I have a hard time believing the bold-faced - is it based on any kind of source or is it strictly a guess?
Quote:
Originally Posted by StarlaJane
Well, the fact that schools can't generate revenues is just the problem. And while a super or admin's salary may be small in comparison, it is still a lot of money to shell out. I imagine that the salaries of all admins and supers combined would be equivalent to that of all the teachers in a district if you were to add it up. Imagine how many more teachers could be hired if salaries were capped?
And yes, I know how much it costs but that really only justifies a cap on salaries all the more--to ensure that the majority of school funds go to classrooms, teachers and students rather than administrators. Frankly, I think that it would be great to give teachers more responsibility and higher pay, and I think many would go for it (I know I certainly would). Instead of sending them to the proncipal, make them sit in the corner wearing a dunce cap; that sure would be cheaper than paying an admin a six-figure salary.
I actually think that teachers currently carry much more liability and risk than admins and, yet, are paid 1/4 what an admin is paid; in fact, the MO of most admins is "don't come to me unless absolutely necessary" and then the teachers are treated like PITA incompetents if they need an admin. So why have them?
The comparison of Supt. to CEOs doesn't cut it. Let's look at Tucson Unified for example. One of the worst in the nation. It's been that way for decades. They pay about 250,000 per year to the Sup.. Usually they last about a year and a half, and part as enemies with a pretty healthy parachute. The District hires a consulting firm to do a nationwide search, they announce several finalists. Last time it included a former IBM VP. It was all a charade. An IBMer is about as welcome as a pack of cigarettes in a kindergarten class. They hired a Hispanic woman from another failing school district, also near the Mexican Border. Lather, rinse, repeat. They are all ready to shell out CEO pay, but just the mere mention of the word "accounting" will create an uproar. Why not take the best principal and rotate them into the position for a four year term? Why not rotate the teachers, who seem to only teach the "gifted" kids at the country club schools into the worst ones? How come the new teachers wind up with the worst classes at the worst schools? We all know what BS stands for, well MS stands for More of the Same, and Phd. is simply short for "piled higher." Their degrees from mostly low quality schools are almost worthless in the private sector.
Well, the fact that schools can't generate revenues is just the problem. And while a super or admin's salary may be small in comparison, it is still a lot of money to shell out. I imagine that the salaries of all admins and supers combined would be equivalent to that of all the teachers in a district if you were to add it up. Imagine how many more teachers could be hired if salaries were capped?
And yes, I know how much it costs but that really only justifies a cap on salaries all the more--to ensure that the majority of school funds go to classrooms, teachers and students rather than administrators. Frankly, I think that it would be great to give teachers more responsibility and higher pay, and I think many would go for it (I know I certainly would). Instead of sending them to the proncipal, make them sit in the corner wearing a dunce cap; that sure would be cheaper than paying an admin a six-figure salary.
I actually think that teachers currently carry much more liability and risk than admins and, yet, are paid 1/4 what an admin is paid; in fact, the MO of most admins is "don't come to me unless absolutely necessary" and then the teachers are treated like PITA incompetents if they need an admin. So why have them?
Based on this post alone, you have no idea how schools really function at all. It's too bad you live in such a crappy district but they are not all like that at all. Our administration work their rears off. They are VERY, VERY supportive of the teachers and the teachers will be the first ones to tell you that. I see a lot of little things our superintendent does that makes a HUGE difference--silly little things like sitting out in 90+ degree heat to watch the marching band practice over the summer-for 3 hours. Like letters she writes to students that have had success in sports, music, academics, etc. Sorry, but I have the utmost respect for the administration (and teachers) in our school district and it is really, REALLY sad when people like you that have NO CLUE what really goes on in a school bash them.
The comparison of Supt. to CEOs doesn't cut it. Let's look at Tucson Unified for example. One of the worst in the nation. It's been that way for decades. They pay about 250,000 per year to the Sup.. Usually they last about a year and a half, and part as enemies with a pretty healthy parachute. The District hires a consulting firm to do a nationwide search, they announce several finalists. Last time it included a former IBM VP. It was all a charade. An IBMer is about as welcome as a pack of cigarettes in a kindergarten class. They hired a Hispanic woman from another failing school district, also near the Mexican Border. Lather, rinse, repeat. They are all ready to shell out CEO pay, but just the mere mention of the word "accounting" will create an uproar. Why not take the best principal and rotate them into the position for a four year term? Why not rotate the teachers, who seem to only teach the "gifted" kids at the country club schools into the worst ones? How come the new teachers wind up with the worst classes at the worst schools? We all know what BS stands for, well MS stands for More of the Same, and Phd. is simply short for "piled higher." Their degrees from mostly low quality schools are almost worthless in the private sector.
First, your argument has nothing to do with your opening statement. Second, I would LOVE to see an experiment done where they shift the teachers from the best schools in a state to the worst and see what happens. It won't be what you THINK will happen. The bad schools will still be bad and the good schools will still be good. It isn't the teachers or the administration's fault that you find family after family after family in a district like you are talking about that doesn't give a crud about getting an education.
We have a couple teachers at our high school that previously taught at an inner city school. They taught the same subject, AP classes. In their old schools, hardly any of the kids passed the AP tests, in our school, the majority of their students are passing the AP tests with 4's and 5's. Same teacher, different students.
Think about what the world would be like without entertainment stars. Now, think about what the world would be like without janitors. That's why.
I don't understand your point at all.
Janitors do a job that requires a tiny amount of intelligence, a bit of on the job training, and perhaps some reliability. There are millions of people who are qualified to do the job. Their pay is low because it deserves to be low.
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.
