You can thank me later Curtis - Teachers aren't underpaid (Pittsburgh: find a job, school districts)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Average allegheny teacher salary 2007 (latest data I could find, but of course had increased since) is $57,755 (/180 days, /7 hrs) = $45.84/hr without factoring the backloaded benefits - & qualified candidates would not be available for hiring if this rate was lowered?
Clearly, qualified teachers are willing to work for less. Teachers at Catholic Schools, Private Schools and Charter Schools get paid less than than their peers at public schools.
So, either private schools employ teachers that are less qualified or there are actually teachers that are willing to work for less. I think it is the latter.
Someone told me that the teachers at St. Edmunds Academy, for example, make a less than the public school teachers. Is this wrong? Now when I went there years ago I thought the teachers were great. I hope this is still the case. I would be disheartened to learn that St. Edmunds is forced to hire lousy teachers because they can't pay them the same as a public school.
Teachers underpaid? Don't make me laugh. Look at how much they pay us Social Workers. I know people who make more working at McDonald's.
Michael Moore's "Capitalism" documentary showed us that many pilots rake in the dough with entry-level salaries of around $18,000. The honest truth of the matter is that many who serve as the backbone to this nation---teachers, pilots, and, yes, social workers---are being paid a fraction of what they OUGHT to be paid. Even as an accountant by profession I was earning roughly $40,000 living near Washington, DC. What did that get me? I could barely afford a 1-BR apartment that I shared with rats in an undesirable suburb. The middle-class in this nation overall is just being destroyed.
In Pittsburgh they can make up to $112K a year. If you feel teachers should make $125K a year for there 180 days, I think you are sniffing glue or posted drunk. I get a kick out of people that somehow compare working as little as teachers do and get paid those kind of numbers.
1) It's unbelievably rude and uncalled for to imply I'm off my rocker by sole virtue of having a different opinion than yours. I didn't come in attacking you, so I would appreciate it if you showed me the same courtesy.
2) The teachers I'm referring to are tenured department heads with advanced degrees (lots of masters and doctorates). "Ordinary" tenured teachers make closer to 90k. My public high school was ranked #1 in the state this year (and it's always in the top 10), so yes, I feel they've earned every penny. My high school was rigorous to the point that I found college fairly easy by comparison. I cannot thank my teachers enough.
3) I don't think you're in a position to judge teachers when you can't even distinguish the proper use of "their" versus "there."
Quote:
Originally Posted by h_curtis
Philly is more expensive than Pittsburgh. If you make 50K in Pittsburgh that is like making 60K in Philly.
If not more. 125k is on the lower end of upper-middle class in Philadelphia. It affords a very comfortable lifestyle, but it's far from wealthy.
Certainly some non-public school teachers are willing to work for less than they could make in public schools. Often they are willing to do that for religious reasons, and some nonsectarian schools may also offer fewer disciplinary problems and fewer disadvantaged students than the nearby public schools.
Generally, I would be very cautious about assuming that the private school model could be scaled up. In the U.S. there are approximately seven times as many public school teachers as private school teachers (elementary and secondary). Further, over 70% of private school teachers are in religious schools, and it turns out the ratio of public school teachers to teachers in nonsectarian private schools is about 25 to 1. Accordingly, I don't think you can assume there is a sufficiently large pool of teachers willing to work in the public schools on the same terms as private school teachers.
Certainly some non-public school teachers are willing to work for less than they could make in public schools. Often they are willing to do that for religious reasons, and some nonsectarian schools may also offer fewer disciplinary problems and fewer disadvantaged students than the nearby public schools.
Generally, I would be very cautious about assuming that the private school model could be scaled up. In the U.S. there are approximately seven times as many public school teachers as private school teachers (elementary and secondary). Further, over 70% of private school teachers are in religious schools, and it turns out the ratio of public school teachers to teachers in nonsectarian private schools is about 25 to 1. Accordingly, I don't think you can assume there is a sufficiently large pool of teachers willing to work in the public schools on the same terms as private school teachers.
It is my understanding that many openings in the better districts have countless applicants. One can easily make the argument that if there are a hundred applicants for a job that they could pay less and still get a decent teacher. Not too mentionk, the best candidate rarely is the one who gets hired. It is more oftent the case that the successful applicant is the one with the best connections, i.e. relative on the school board, relative who is a teacher in the district, etc.
I am not saying we need to cut the amount of dollars we spend on education. Instead, we should hire more teachers but pay them a little less.
It is my understanding that many openings in the better districts have countless applicants. One can easily make the argument that if there are a hundred applicants for a job that they could pay less and still get a decent teacher.
Again, this is the teachers-as-commodity theory: it doesn't matter how much you pay teachers, as long as you are getting 100 applicants those applicants must be as good as we would want, right?
That really doesn't make any sense just on the face of it. Most jobs these days get lots of applicants. Certainly any job that doesn't take a lot of specific physical skills and isn't particularly hazardous or otherwise superficially unpleasant is likely to attract a lot of applicants these days. But at the same time, many businesses are still complaining about being able to get the specific sort of job applicants they actually want to hire.
And in any event, we know lots of things that suggest this theory about teachers as a commodity is all wrong. We know many teachers are quitting the profession early in their careers. As the study in the OP indicates, we know that teaching isn't attracting the best possible candidates among the college-educated pool as measured by things like standardized test scores. We know that other countries pay teachers relatively more, and that doing so appears to be correlated with better results. And so on.
So no, teachers aren't a commodity, and just because you get 100 applicants doesn't mean you are getting 100 of the applicants you actually want.
Quote:
Not too mentionk, the best candidate rarely is the one who gets hired. It is more oftent the case that the successful applicant is the one with the best connections, i.e. relative on the school board, relative who is a teacher in the district, etc.
To the extent this is true, this is certainly a serious issue. Generally, I would support lots of reforms to the ways in which teachers are traditionally hired, trained, evaluated, compensated, retained, and so on.
But that doesn't mean arbitrarily paying teachers less would help. Again, these two things actually go hand in hand--if we want better teachers, we should both reform all those things and also provide them with better relative compensation and social status.
First of all, I would LOVE to know why the people posting about how EASY teaching is, and how LITTLE work is involved for the money are not teachers themselves??? If this is such a great deal, then aren't you missing out on a huge opportunity? I mean there are thousands of teaching jobs available all over the world. Many places pay better than Pittsburgh even. I just don't understand, if it's so cushy, then why aren't you doing it?
Secondly, higher salaries enable districts to be more discerning than others. Take a look at the neighboring districts of Mt. Lebanon and Keystone Oaks. Mt. Lebanon is able to attract and retain quality educators, which benefits the entire community! It's a desiralbe community and one of the main reasons that housing values are higher in Mt. Lebanon is because people want to move there for the schools because they are high achieving schools. Even those people with anti-education agendas would have to credit the teachers with that. (In addition to parents who probably value education.) While taxes might be higher, so are home values. If you are a home owner in such a community over several years, I would think that fact alone would be extremely beneficial to you. Compare that to Dormont (Keystone Oaks). As soon as you cross McFarland Rd, housing values plummet in comparison. While Keystone Oaks isn't an awful district, it's certainly out the league of districts like Mt. Lebanon, Upper St. Clair, etc. Quality teachers require quality salaries, or else they relocate elsewhere where a higher salary will be paid.
Also, I would suggest that if you really think a teacher is underworked, shadow one for a week. Just becuase we all went to school doesn't mean that everyone knows how to be a teacher or what it is like to be a teacher. Everyone only knows what it was like to be a student, and most of us before the advent of technology that's come over the past 10 years. It's a different world now, and the realm of education reflects it (especially in the better districts!)
But a mechanical engineer, materials engineer, and electrical engineer generally earn about the same, just as do an reading teacher and a math teacher.
But that is the real question. To me, an average reading or history teacher is not nearly as valuable as a math or science teachers. The degree requirements are often tougher and the supply is definitely less. Using engineers as an example, I would think nuclear engineer would command a better salary than say a civil engineer. Maybe not significantly better, but I would hope at least slightly higher. Same goes even within the same field. I know in computer science people with certain skills sets definitely enjoy a premium over others. I don't see why teachers are any different. Having everyone start out at $38k a year, and earn 3.5% more each year after doesn't provide much incentive to bring in skilled candidates. It also does nothing to reward or punish the good and the bad performers.
Michael Moore's "Capitalism" documentary showed us that many pilots rake in the dough with entry-level salaries of around $18,000. The honest truth of the matter is that many who serve as the backbone to this nation---teachers, pilots, and, yes, social workers---are being paid a fraction of what they OUGHT to be paid. Even as an accountant by profession I was earning roughly $40,000 living near Washington, DC. What did that get me? I could barely afford a 1-BR apartment that I shared with rats in an undesirable suburb. The middle-class in this nation overall is just being destroyed.
Who decides what someone OUGHT to be paid? Sounds like the taxpayers have decided what those jobs are worth, and the people who buy airplane tickets. In other words, society decides what you are worth.
Rats in Reston? Hahaha........Reston is VERY middle class.
But that is the real question. To me, an average reading or history teacher is not nearly as valuable as a math or science teachers. The degree requirements are often tougher and the supply is definitely less. Using engineers as an example, I would think nuclear engineer would command a better salary than say a civil engineer. Maybe not significantly better, but I would hope at least slightly higher. Same goes even within the same field. I know in computer science people with certain skills sets definitely enjoy a premium over others. I don't see why teachers are any different. Having everyone start out at $38k a year, and earn 3.5% more each year after doesn't provide much incentive to bring in skilled candidates. It also does nothing to reward or punish the good and the bad performers.
Supply and demand? Yes, that works everywhere except in teaching. Their unions won't allow it. So schools can't find anyone to teach AP Physics or AP calculus because unions will not allow them to be paid more than a second grade teacher, for which the school district has 20 qualified applicants. In the real world, people with more specialized skills are paid more because the supply is lower and that puts them in greater demand. Supply and demand works in everything, but it's not permitted in education. So some students will never be offered higher level math and science and computer science because the school system is not allowed to pay them a competitive salary.
In the real world people are paid based on their merit. Those who work hard, are the best at what they do, get raises. It doesn't work that in teaching. Everyone gets a raise, solely based on longevity, whether they are the best teacher in the city/county, or the very worst. Why would anyone strive to be the best or work harder than anyone else? There is ZERO incentive.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $53,000 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 1.5 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.
The honest truth of the matter is that many who serve as the backbone to this nation---teachers, pilots, and, yes, social workers---are being paid a fraction of what they OUGHT to be paid. Even as an accountant by profession I was earning roughly $40,000 living near Washington, DC. What did that get me? I could barely afford a 1-BR apartment that I shared with rats in an undesirable suburb. The middle-class in this nation overall is just being destroyed.
