Great... the one chance I had for a job is now gone (Pittsburgh: schools, salaries)

[gg]

Originally Posted by Hopes

No, I'm not. I have friend who is a teacher at NA. That's what they were earning under a contract 6 years ago when she was trying to convince me to go get my certification. I've found published budget info for some local school districts in the past and have posted links here. Please tell me I don't need to go find the links AGAIN to prove something I've already proven in the past. NA is among the top paid school districts in the country. Many others in the metro area aren't far behind them but don't make the top national list.

I know Fox Chapel was right up there with N/A. They were in a pissing contest at the expense of the tax payer. Great for the teachers, bad for people on fixed income.

[Hopes]

I call 90k near 100k. And NA teachers are making 90k in 10 years. They make over 100k in 15 years.

Here's a recent article:

A teacher reaches $100,630 in Fox Chapel in the 19th year and $100,571 in North Allegheny in part in the 15th year and in full the 16th year. This amount does not count money teachers can earn for extra work, such as coaching and curriculum writing.

This coming fall, teachers in 17 of the 42 suburban school districts in Allegheny County will be making at least $90,000 a year at the career rate.

Twelve of those districts have negotiated pay schedules for 2010-11: East Allegheny, $91,706; Fox Chapel Area, $98,380; Keystone Oaks, $90,311; Montour, $97,538; North Allegheny, $98,305; North Hills, $90,031; Pine-Richland, $93,454 (preliminary number); Plum, $94,400; Steel Valley, $90,888; Upper St. Clair; $95,500; West Mifflin, $94,400; and Woodland Hills, $90,000.

In addition, four districts that have not reached agreements for 2010-11 already had career rates above $90,000 in 2009-10. They are Bethel Park, $92,548; Moon, $92,685; Mt. Lebanon, $94,219; and West Jefferson Hills, $91,294.

Read more: Pay for some teachers set to exceed $100,000

[gg]

Originally Posted by Hopes

I call 90k near 100k. And NA teachers are making 90k in 10 years. They make over 100k in 15 years.

Here's a recent article:

I will be quite honest with you. Those salaries are downright stupid. How are we going to pay for pensions based on those salaries and higher new teachers to boot? It really makes me sick people agree to that kind of wage when teachers work two months less than the private sector that makes less money. What a joke. We will be paying some serious school taxes when those $100K plus earners start retiring and we have to replace them. I wonder what new tax they will come up with for that or will they just keep raising school property taxes? Hard to say, but I will be retiring elsewhere. Who can afford all t his?

[Sideblinded]

"If the tentative agreement for Pittsburgh teachers is approved Monday, the district's career rate -- which was $79,800 in 2009-10 -- will grow to $81,300 in the coming year and gradually rise by $1,500 a year to $87,300 in 2014-15. Pittsburgh teachers reach the career rate partway through their 10th year and fully realize it in the 11th year.

In addition to the career rate, Pittsburgh also offers two special payments totaling $4,200 for longtime teachers: the teachers/professionals increment and the longevity increment, which would bring the total for these teachers this fall to $85,500 a year or $91,500 a year in 2014-15."

Quote from same article.

If you were given a choice would you want to teach at Westinghouse or Fox Chapel? Added bonus, you get paid less if you choose Westinghouse.

Teaching inner city is not for sissies, and is a very difficult job.

[hempfield mania]

But, teaching at Westinghouse still isn't worth $81,300 a year with nearly full bennies only working 10 months a year (after only 10 yrs of experience).

Many engineers, scientists and other technical degrees don't earn that much after that much time in and they have to actually contribute a lot of that salary to their medical benefits and god forbid, work 12 months out of the year.

[Hopes]

As a parent, I would have liked a 12 month school year. Summers make childcare difficult.

[gg]

Originally Posted by Hopes

As a parent, I would have liked a 12 month school year. Summers make childcare difficult.

[Hopes]

Originally Posted by h_curtis

Yeah, that's exactly how the unions would respond too.

[gg]

Originally Posted by Hopes

Yeah, that's exactly how the unions would respond too.

Lots to be learned with family time and kids during the summer months. I do think at some point you will get your way though even though it is too late. If you look at work and progression of family's employment, you will notice the 40 hour work week is gone... well unless you are a teacher. Then many times both parents work because they want a Cadillac Escalade and to show off to the neighbors what they bought and a bigger TV. Most are working more like 50+ hours a week. People don't have time to raise kids, so they want society to raise them. It is a sad cycle. Therefore, at some point kids will go to school full time and be raised by teachers. When that happens, they will earn their six figure salary, of course at that time maybe they will make $250K a year and taxes on the average home in Pittsburgh will be $2500 a month.

[Hopes]

Curtis, schools with full year schedules still have lots of time off. It's often taken quarterly instead of all at once.

As a parent, I personally would prefer three weeks off four times per year much more than three months all at once.