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.
As an aside, if teacher's unions ruin public schools, why are schools in Fox Chapel Area, Upper Saint Clair, and Mount Lebanon (which I'm 99% are all unionized as well) well regarded?
The other side of the equation is that it isn't going to cost PPS $18,000 less for each incremental student that it cedes to ECS. Total education costs will almost certainly go up in the city due to this decision.
As for the banter about bad schools, I also find it pretty sickening that people refuse to send their kids to neighborhood schools. This groupthink is what contributes to bad schools. If a critical mass of involved parents choose to send their kids to private schools or move out due to perception, the schools will never improve.
As a city resident with an income that could certainly support a private education at any of the schools around, we are committed to sending our son to PPS in part because we want to be part of the solution to the fear of urban schools that exists around the nation. I also went to a public school that most of those who flee to suburbs would never dare send their children to. I happen to believe that myself and my peers achieved career success in part due to the combination of involved parents and an education that included people of diverse socioeconomic background.
It is easy to say this on principal being from and having means but I can imagine many of the lower income residents of the city that work 3 jobs to make ends meet would clamor to send their kids to the well-regarded public schools outside of the city. You are speaking from a position of privilege. I don't mean this as an insult but many don't have the time to supplement education outside of the classroom.
As an aside, if teacher's unions ruin public schools, why are schools in Fox Chapel Area, Upper Saint Clair, and Mount Lebanon (which I'm 99% are all unionized as well) well regarded?
I have never heard a logical argument against teacher's unions. Just needless attacking.
As an aside, if teacher's unions ruin public schools, why are schools in Fox Chapel Area, Upper Saint Clair, and Mount Lebanon (which I'm 99% are all unionized as well) well regarded?
I think we need to realize that it is mostly about parenting and home life and less to do with teachers themselves. I do think in general teachers are paid too much in our region. Sure districts can afford it in the short term, but the legacy costs are killing districts. There does need to be a balance and fiscal responsibility. There are people leaving our region when they retire because the school tax burden is so great in our area. This isn't saying teachers should be paid WAY less, it is more about seeing future costs and providing a good education for the next generation as well. I don't feel teachers should average over $80,000 a year for example. They get a TON of time off compared to those working in business fields and the like.
It is easy to say this on principal being from and having means but I can imagine many of the lower income residents of the city that work 3 jobs to make ends meet would clamor to send their kids to the well-regarded public schools outside of the city. You are speaking from a position of privilege. I don't mean this as an insult but many don't have the time to supplement education outside of the classroom.
Being from means? I don't often respond to personal attacks but that is patently false. I am the son of a mechanic, who is still working into his 60s. I hardly grew up "of means". I recall someone writing in my 7th grade yearbook (which my parents couldn't buy, I had to pay for myself with money I earned delivering newspapers), that I was a "nice guy, but only had five shirts." This was a dig at the fact that my parents couldn't afford to buy me new clothes too often, and it was noticeable.
As to your actual point, I do respect your view and that makes sense in individual cases now, because of the deterioration in our public schools. My desire is to have city public schools be as well-regarded as public schools outside of the city, though. The only way to do that is if a critical mass of parents who do have the time to devote to their children's education to keep their children in city public schools and not flee out of fear that their kids will "grow up bad" because they "didn't do enough" to give their children opportunity.
That said, it isn't as if I don't recognize the impediments to this happening, especially in areas like Cal-Kirkbride that are mostly surrounded by other low-income areas. These areas stand in stark contrast to the oft-cited examples of Garfield and East Liberty that are gentrifying and surrounded by areas of higher means. Socioeconomic diversity and a willingness of those of different means to interact with one another, especially at the parental level, are keys to helping those children born without as much economic advantage to thrive. This likely needs to be combined with social policies like living wage requirements and basic income, an idea which I am coming around to, so that no one actually needs to work three jobs to make ends meet. The fact that some single or even dual-parent households have to work three jobs to support their families is a self-fulfilling prophecy in many ways, and a spiral that many children cannot escape.
I really am considering the long game here, while many others are thinking "not my kids" because of the short term mindset that life is defined by their own mortality. I really want things to be better for many generations.
I think we need to realize that it is mostly about parenting and home life and less to do with teachers themselves. I do think in general teachers are paid too much in our region. Sure districts can afford it in the short term, but the legacy costs are killing districts. There does need to be a balance and fiscal responsibility. There are people leaving our region when they retire because the school tax burden is so great in our area. This isn't saying teachers should be paid WAY less, it is more about seeing future costs and providing a good education for the next generation as well. I don't feel teachers should average over $80,000 a year for example. They get a TON of time off compared to those working in business fields and the like.
In Pennsylvania the average teacher salary is $62,000. I'm guessing it's a bit higher than the median in the Pittsburgh area, but not dramatically so. Generally speaking the highest paid teachers in a district will be those who coach multiple sports teams, as each coaching gig can get you another $5,000-$10,000 on top of your base salary.
Regardless, I have friends who are teachers. It's a very tough job, particularly once you're past primary level if you're not in a top performing school, simply because you have to deal with students who very pointedly don't want to be there every day - something the rest of us (unless we're say prison guards or something) do not typically have to deal with. The "summers off" thing is overblown too. In my experience the only people who really get to enjoy this are married and have higher-earning partners. The single teachers I have known (who of course are still near starting pay) had to get jobs bartending or doing Uber over the summers in order to pay their bills.
In general though, you get what you pay for in teaching. Finland, for example, now has one of the best school systems in the world, despite students only starting elementary school at seven and going to school for far less hours than Americans. Although there are a lot of unique elements of the pedagogy, one of the most important elements is thought to have been the transformation of teaching as a career. Essentially they made it impossible to become a teacher unless you were in the top 10% in terms of school performance, turning it into a prestigious (and relatively well paid) job like a doctor or lawyer. Within a generation of doing this, student performance went through the roof. Doing the exact inverse - cutting teacher pay and benefits - will cause more people with other options to leave the career, and erode teacher quality.
Status:
"**** YOU IBGINNIE, NAZI"
(set 15 days ago)
2,401 posts, read 2,101,983 times
Reputation: 2321
I have friends who have been teaching in PPS since the 90's. They definitely earn their incomes. There is a lot of after hours/extra curricular stuff that is expected of them. Trips, dances, etc. They certainly aren't rolling in dough and drive 10 year old cars. The kids have zero respect for most of the teachers; why in the world would somebody call their art teacher a white b....h? It's a tough job, it's a thankless job and they earn every penny they make.
In Pennsylvania the average teacher salary is $62,000. I'm guessing it's a bit higher than the median in the Pittsburgh area, but not dramatically so. Generally speaking the highest paid teachers in a district will be those who coach multiple sports teams, as each coaching gig can get you another $5,000-$10,000 on top of your base salary.
Regardless, I have friends who are teachers. It's a very tough job, particularly once you're past primary level if you're not in a top performing school, simply because you have to deal with students who very pointedly don't want to be there every day - something the rest of us (unless we're say prison guards or something) do not typically have to deal with. The "summers off" thing is overblown too. In my experience the only people who really get to enjoy this are married and have higher-earning partners. The single teachers I have known (who of course are still near starting pay) had to get jobs bartending or doing Uber over the summers in order to pay their bills.
In general though, you get what you pay for in teaching. Finland, for example, now has one of the best school systems in the world, despite students only starting elementary school at seven and going to school for far less hours than Americans. Although there are a lot of unique elements of the pedagogy, one of the most important elements is thought to have been the transformation of teaching as a career. Essentially they made it impossible to become a teacher unless you were in the top 10% in terms of school performance, turning it into a prestigious (and relatively well paid) job like a doctor or lawyer. Within a generation of doing this, student performance went through the roof. Doing the exact inverse - cutting teacher pay and benefits - will cause more people with other options to leave the career, and erode teacher quality.
After a quick study regarding teacher's salaries in our region seems you are right. Guess I just see Fox Chapel paying over $80K on average as one of the highest and it gets to me a bit.
Comparing the US with all the minorities and high crime to a country like Finland would be hard to do. Finland is very safe and civil. They don't have massive areas with blight, violence and people not caring about education. Finland is pretty homogeneous which makes it great. The US on the other hand has so many problems in comparison we will never compete on average, BUT on the bright side we have all levels of education. For those that care about education, you can just move to a great district. Doesn't matter if you have money or not really. Sharpsburg for example is probably cheaper than most all of Pittsburgh. A great education can be had for all which makes things pretty great.
Being from means? I don't often respond to personal attacks but that is patently false. I am the son of a mechanic, who is still working into his 60s. I hardly grew up "of means". I recall someone writing in my 7th grade yearbook (which my parents couldn't buy, I had to pay for myself with money I earned delivering newspapers), that I was a "nice guy, but only had five shirts." This was a dig at the fact that my parents couldn't afford to buy me new clothes too often, and it was noticeable.
As to your actual point, I do respect your view and that makes sense in individual cases now, because of the deterioration in our public schools. My desire is to have city public schools be as well-regarded as public schools outside of the city, though. The only way to do that is if a critical mass of parents who do have the time to devote to their children's education to keep their children in city public schools and not flee out of fear that their kids will "grow up bad" because they "didn't do enough" to give their children opportunity.
That said, it isn't as if I don't recognize the impediments to this happening, especially in areas like Cal-Kirkbride that are mostly surrounded by other low-income areas. These areas stand in stark contrast to the oft-cited examples of Garfield and East Liberty that are gentrifying and surrounded by areas of higher means. Socioeconomic diversity and a willingness of those of different means to interact with one another, especially at the parental level, are keys to helping those children born without as much economic advantage to thrive. This likely needs to be combined with social policies like living wage requirements and basic income, an idea which I am coming around to, so that no one actually needs to work three jobs to make ends meet. The fact that some single or even dual-parent households have to work three jobs to support their families is a self-fulfilling prophecy in many ways, and a spiral that many children cannot escape.
I really am considering the long game here, while many others are thinking "not my kids" because of the short term mindset that life is defined by their own mortality. I really want things to be better for many generations.
I'm sorry I didn't mean that as a personal attack but it seems that you realize you are looking at it from a different perspective. i do agree with you but you can't really blame people for taking the easy way out when the alternative really doesn't have much benefit. hopefully more people are like you and stick to their guns in city schools and hopefully the administration figures some things out.
In Pennsylvania the average teacher salary is $62,000. I'm guessing it's a bit higher than the median in the Pittsburgh area, but not dramatically so. Generally speaking the highest paid teachers in a district will be those who coach multiple sports teams, as each coaching gig can get you another $5,000-$10,000 on top of your base salary.
Regardless, I have friends who are teachers. It's a very tough job, particularly once you're past primary level if you're not in a top performing school, simply because you have to deal with students who very pointedly don't want to be there every day - something the rest of us (unless we're say prison guards or something) do not typically have to deal with. The "summers off" thing is overblown too. In my experience the only people who really get to enjoy this are married and have higher-earning partners. The single teachers I have known (who of course are still near starting pay) had to get jobs bartending or doing Uber over the summers in order to pay their bills.
In general though, you get what you pay for in teaching. Finland, for example, now has one of the best school systems in the world, despite students only starting elementary school at seven and going to school for far less hours than Americans. Although there are a lot of unique elements of the pedagogy, one of the most important elements is thought to have been the transformation of teaching as a career. Essentially they made it impossible to become a teacher unless you were in the top 10% in terms of school performance, turning it into a prestigious (and relatively well paid) job like a doctor or lawyer. Within a generation of doing this, student performance went through the roof. Doing the exact inverse - cutting teacher pay and benefits - will cause more people with other options to leave the career, and erode teacher quality.
plus the average is propped up by teachers being in their position for many many years. looking at the average years of service would be telling. teacher includes those with 1 and 30 years of experience. there aren't many other jobs where the title is stagnant so it doesn't really make sense to compare. i don't think making 80k for 15 years of experience is out of line.
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.
