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.
Even as an educator, I too, wonder where the money is coming from, even for these first year teachers.
And it is *not* a chance to hire better experienced teachers because in South Dakota, let's say I wanted to move to a different district. I can *not* come in at entry level but must be credited for the years I've already put in. So, you see, I could have taught for 20 years, move to another district, and I could still not come in as a newhire and get more money. We are attempting to penalize our experienced teachers.
And yes, our salaries are going up! This year I taught for $200 dollars more a year than last year. The year before I got a big $400 a yr. raise. However, every single year for the past twelve years my increase in pay was more than gobbled up by my increase in insurance.
Yes, not all school districts pay for their employees' insurance. In our district they pay a portion of the single rate but that's all, unless you are an administrator, and they get full benefits. Go figure!
Sugarbeet, I agree. It's just so much more complex then simply giving teachers a raise.
Eggman, would you be credited for your entire 20 years of experience or would there be a limit on the credit given? Some districts have a limit on the amount of years of experience they will credit their employees for. But I guess that's pretty universal. Most employers don't pay a person adequately for 20 years of experience elsewhere.
I don't know where you teach, but it must be in a very small district. Most of the larger ones give a 3% increase per year so most educators end up with about 1,000 a year extra, which is actually well over 100 a month considering the amount of days taught. You know~no summer classes or Christmas breaks, etc. I'm also surprised that your district doesn't pay at least 65% of the family healthcare plan. At one time, the cost of the premium for healthcare for the district employee was free, but that has changed through the years. Still, right now the cost for the employee's healthcare premium is 43 per month which isn't bad. Have you checked in to any of the larger districts to see how things compare?
Don't misunderstand, I totally agree that educator's salaries need to be increased and not only at the entry level. I just find it unfair that they're often the only ones considered to be paid low in our state when so many other occupations face the same situation. There are also news stories that can skew one's feelings about the plight.
A few nights ago there was a news story that told of a couple who were both teachers and in their 50s. The man had previously been a truck driver and was considering going back to that OR they were both going to move out of state to teach. It told how the lady had gotten ill and wasn't able to teach for an entire year. They said they relied totally on the husband's teaching salary which was 30,000 and 17,000 was left after everything was taken out. Of course that's sad and I do feel bad for the lady. BUT would it be any different in any other kind of occupation if one takes ill? Also, was she being responsible for not taking out the district disability plan so she would get total wages if she wasn't able to work? The cost for that in our own district is 10.20 per month. Of course, if they move out of state, they will both be working again so I'm sure they'll claim how much better off they are.
But back to the topic that you were originally asking about. It's definitely not fair to hire entry workers in at a wage that is comparable to the hard-working and loyal people that have been there. It can make people lose their loyalty quickly. You'd be surprised at how many of us have experienced that exact same thing.
I don't know where you are from, Sugar Beet, but for everyone's information:
1.
NEA has very little power in SD. Most teachers don't belong (thank God) I've always considered them a communist organization and have never given them a dime of my money to give to liberal organizations and political pacs.
The local SDEA group in our school claims to negotiate on teacher's behalf but it's a great laugh because we all know we will get just and only just what the school board offers us.
2.
There is no such thing as tenure in South Dakota. Teachers who are considered to be poor teachers *can be* and *are* dismissed. No law to prevent that like in other states where the NEA has tons of power.
3.
Absolutely you are correct when you say we are not paid poorly compared to other occupations in SD,. That's why I have never complained that we are last. We're last in a lot of things, so what?
4.
If you *did* take into account that a teacher is "keeping your kids out of your hair" all day, we don't make what we could make as a baby sitter.
Two years ago I had 29 students. If I would even have charged fifty cents and hour as a sitter, I would have been ahead!
5.
I have not seen the "teacher shortage" that so many claim our state has. Where is it? Just on the reservation, and that is separate from anything to do with public schools in the state. Many of our young people are willing to teach because they love children and love teaching. That's why I've stayed in the business for 25 years. Where else can I have opportunity to touch so many young lives?
6.
Our wages probably are poor compared to some other occupations in SD which require the amount of education we must have. I have a 22 year old child with a HS education making more than I do. Granted, I would not care for his job and do not envy him, but I have a job that requires I continue to go to college and "renew" my teaching certificate every five years, and those college hours I have to pay for out of my pocket. An hour of college credit can run from $100 - $200. So I will pay out about 1000 bucks every five years to "keep up on things" taking courses that many times are of no value but we've been told we need to "stay current".
Considering that my wages have *never* increased more than $450 from one year to the next in all the years I have taught, I am going behind, not getting ahead. My cost of living has increased more than the raise. Insurance increase most years more than ate up the increment. Fuel cost to work has tripled since W took office. In order to survive here in our beloved state, I have been forced to join the ranks of the uninsured. (I pray nothing tragic happens.)
7.
I believe we have the finest young people in the country! How can we help but have the finest when they come from such good stock? I wouldn't want to teach anywhere else.
8.
I wouldn't want to live anywhere else. I have been half of the states in the US. I haven't found anything to beat home sweet home. I often kid that our family moved to SD 130 years ago and were too poor to ever get away. The truth be known, why would we want to get away?
9.
We South Dakotans love to complain about how bad it is in SD, i.e.: The weather, the cost heating, isolation, wages, you name it; But just let some one from out of state say anything against our "great state" and they are fighting words. The things we have that "aren't so great" seems to be the things that keep us here. It's the glue that binds us all together.
10.
Hail South Dakota! The state we love the best! Home of our fathers, builders of the west! No state's so healthy, and no folk quite so true, to South Dakota , We all welcome you!
Depends on what you mean by "from," but I was born in South Dakota, lived there for many years off and on and the majority of my family still lives there - including some teachers. I was even trained as a HS teacher and taught college in SD, though I have not taught in a South Dakota public secondary school.
Quote:
Originally Posted by egg man
There is no such thing as tenure in South Dakota. Teachers who are considered to be poor teachers *can be* and *are* dismissed. No law to prevent that like in other states where the NEA has tons of power.
Fair enough, but one doesn't have to have official tenure to have what amounts to tenure. I'm sure they don't exist, but I'd love to see stats on the number of teachers who were dismissed for lack of teaching skills as opposed to some kind of specific inappropriate act. And by whose standards are they "poor teachers"? And even if they're not "poor," who wants an "good enough" teacher?
I still have never seen a school anywhere that's run like a corporation, where (in theory, anyway) the best get promoted and more money, while the laggards get left behind. I'm not a big fan of corporate america, but I still think that if schools were run more like companies, both students and teachers would benefit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by egg man
I have not seen the "teacher shortage" that so many claim our state has.
True, there must be an abundance of ready teachers if the "poor" ones are consistently dismissed and replaced.
I suggest increasing pay, but have it based on merit. Many of the experienced teachers along with newer teachers who are talented will thrive under merit pay. It will encourage improved performance and dedication and encourage a trend for South Dakota to have a strong and innovative education system. The students will benefit due to having better teachers, teachers improve under improved wages and morale, and the public will improve with a better education and eventually a talented work force (which will encourage companies with higher paying jobs to consider South Dakota instead of overlooking it or relucatantly coming here due to just having low taxes). The economies of our small and large towns will be enriched.
Again, I will say that the teachers need better pay. But I will also say that raising their pay will not make them teach harder.
Not only does the teachers need better pay, but the schools need more money so the teaching environment is more friendly and gives them more opportunities.
Teachers are providing our next generation. That next generation deserves the best opportunity they can get.
But simply raising the pay for a teacher doesn't give the kids a better education.
EH, I couldn't agree with you more. It's just something that was thrown out there and we don't even analyze it anymore cause it's been said so often it's considered to be fact by many people. If all else fails, use one of the cliches. Another good one is "If you cared about the children....." We all have soft spots for them and they're often used as a manipulative tool.
Eggman, you're right about the NEA, but it is a very powerful organization. It's probably right up there with the AMA. But each district has their own organization (Just a nice word for union, basically). In my own city, it's called the MEA. But I'm totally with you on not agreeing with many things they do.
But realistically, who are we going to take the money away from?
1.It will be the farmers who work 8 hours a day all winter long and spend 16 to 18 hours a day working in the fields 7 months a year.
2. The firefighter who is out fighting fires for 12 hours at a time when it's 10 below.
3. The police officer who is out there risking his life especially during the graveyard shift.
4. It will be the teacher's assistant who is working 5 and a half hours a day at 7.50 per hour. I know you understand the significance of the five and a half hours~they don't qualify for benies.
5. The cashier who works many different shifts for 7.50 an hour. Yea, the one who's working on Christmas Eve and the 4th of July.
6. The factory worker who is working 12 hour shifts at 8 or 9 per hour.
And the list could go on and on. We've got to remember that all of these people work year-round. Many don't get holidays off and they definitely don't get summers off. You and I both know that to keep up with certification every fifth year, it isn't 8 hours per day 3 months of the summer.
I quickly compiled a list and it isn't complete, but I'd like to share it with you. It may make you feel a little more valued and appreciated. It may also let others know that teachers aren't standing in the food stamp lines.
Since you said you've been teaching 25 years, your salary may be near the 40,000 per year range. By the way, you've got to be getting close to the rules of 85 so hang in there.
SO, at 40,000 per year the district is contributing 2,400 yearly to your SDRS fund and it's done extremely well for many years now. It's kicked the behind out of the stock market as far as performance and returns are concerned.
I'm not sure why you don't pay the 43 a month so you have health insurance. That is so risky. The contribution our local district pays toward single health insurance is a total of 4,498 per year. Of course it's much more toward family insurance~the district contribution for family insurance is 640 per month if you opt for that.
They pay 50.40 per YEAR for 20,000 life insurance. Of course, you can buy additional up to 70,000 if you so desire.
The district contributres 321.28 per year toward single dental. Once again, their contribution is much more if you opt for family coverage.
So your total compensation for the year is actually in the area of 47,269.66. Remember that you're getting all holidays off and most summers. Considering that your contract is probably for close to 190 days, it's decent compensation. Your face time with students is approximately 6 hours per day, but I realize there are papers to correct, lesson plans to do, grades to prepare, etc. But the approximate 185 days of class would mean that you gross approximately 255 per day. If you worked 12 months per year, your total compensation would be 59,086 per year. I came to this number by adding the 25% part of the year there is no class.
Basically, someone with your experience and amount of time in will be compensated about 30 per hour. If you were babysitting 29 children at 50 cents per hour, 14.50 per hour. Babysitting small children is quite different then teaching children who are able to care for themselves. We both realize that one person would not be able to watch 29 two year olds and survive it.
It is amazing that some of the highest paid people in the state such as administrators are exempt from paying a healthcare premium though, isn't it?
Again, I will say that the teachers need better pay. But I will also say that raising their pay will not make them teach harder.
Not only does the teachers need better pay, but the schools need more money so the teaching environment is more friendly and gives them more opportunities.
Teachers are providing our next generation. That next generation deserves the best opportunity they can get.
But simply raising the pay for a teacher doesn't give the kids a better education.
Imo.
This is a good point. For raises and additional pay, merit pay is effective but the teachers have to earn their raises and increased pay. I am not suggesting that teachers should teach to the test as implied by No Child Left Behind Act (a pet project of Bush that is a good in theory but lousy in practice, especially for those school districts with special needs kids and is underfunded). Parents and administrators should have some input.
What is putting an unfair strain on teachers is No Child Left Behind Act. Of the many things from Bush that I disagree with, this one tops the list. It is good in theory, where there should be standards for student performance. It is very lousy in practice and has some misgivings. A school can get dinged for having a large amount of special needs kids (who may be slower with learning due to learning disabiliities or physical handicaps), immigrant kids (who migrate to the area and do not have a strong command), and some kids who's parents simply do not care. The last one can be helped by pushing parental involvement in the kid's education. The first two are tougher to tackle for schools, even with the school's best efforts.
My main complaint is that teachers are forced to use the "teach to the test" method instead of having flexibility to adapt their teaching to the mix of student they have. Each student has his or her way of learning and a teacher needs to his or her best to accomadate that. Creativity is lacking with NCLB Act and it is essential for the formation of essential critical thinking and problem solving skills needed in the workplace.
NCLB Act removes that and puts unfair burden and is another failed product of government bureaucracy tryting to ruin our kids and not allowing them to think for themselves (thus turning them into robots). Thinking for yourself is an important trait to have in problem solving and decision-making in the workplace, especially high-paying jobs.
Besides the rant on NCLB, teachers need to be rewarded for good performance. This may be somewhat subjective in nature, but there should be some key goals with some room for flexibility for the teachers.
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.
So, you see, I could have taught for 20 years, move to another district, and I could still not come in as a newhire and get more money. We are attempting to penalize our experienced teachers.
How can we help but have the finest when they come from such good stock? I wouldn't want to teach anywhere else.
