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.
I'm in my 9th year of teaching with two masters degrees. I make less than $50K/year (and I'm getting a pay cut next year), I pay $350/month for medical and have a $1000 family deductible. I am required to contribute over $5K to my pension which will be about $13K for 17 years in service if I make it to retirement. I will have no medical benefits in retirement.
Compare this to my industry job. I had a $90K base salary with a 15% bonus in years the company had a profit. I paid about $300/month for benefits but I was also given a benefit allowance that basically covered my expenses and part of my family's (cafeteria style benefits where the amount you were given went up with years of service). I had no deductible. I did not have to contribute to my pension (which ironically would have been $13k/year if I hadn't taken the buy out) and I would have had medical in retirement. I had 4 weeks vacation and purchased two more through the cafeteria benefits. I had all major holidays off and a few more for a total of 15 holidays per year. I rarely worked weekends but when I did I was paid time and a half for Saturday and double time on Sunday. I was also paid time and a half for all hours over 44 in a week. I did the math when I became a teacher and if you comped all the hours over 44 that I work during the school year as time off later you'd still owe me three weeks off when summer ended.
Where is the gravy train....I want on, lol.
I often wish I was back in industry but I've come to the conclusion that at my age that is not going to happen unless we actually do get an engineer shortage in this country. I'll believe we have one when they start interviewing people over 50 for engineering jobs. I can name a dozen 50 something engineers who were downsized in 2005-2008 who have never been able to find work as an engineer myself included. So I jumped on the teaching gravy train but I think the train left the station without me. My district hasn't given normal step increases in the entire time I've been there and there is no plan to resume giving them any time soon. We're taking a 2.5% pay cut next year and then the size of our cut the following year will be the subject of the union negotiation. If all goes well I MIGHT see a step increase in my 12th year of teaching. Some gravy train. I wonder how many people would stay in a job where they were promised yearly raises when the employer simply doesn't give them and be happy?
In all fairness, the bolded is not typical of private industry today. To get the medical you describe, I paid $1000/month for a family of 4. My company finally dropped that plan and I pay upwards of $700/mo for a significantly lesser plan. My husband gets 3 weeks vacation, which must be used every year. No carryover. I get 4 weeks PTO (vacation+sick) but can carry over up to a predetermined ceiling. I get 7 holidays. Pay increases have been in the 2% range (when we get them) for the past 10 years. Pension? What's that? You're on your own baby - including medical. Company match is laughable.
If you think what you had is typical, you're very much mistaken. You were in the auto industry which was not representative of the rest of private industry.
I understand your current situation is not good, but comparing it to something that doesn't much exist for anyone anymore is not a good comparison.
In all fairness, the bolded is not typical of private industry today. To get the medical you describe, I paid $1000/month for a family of 4. My company finally dropped that plan and I pay upwards of $700/mo for a significantly lesser plan. My husband gets 3 weeks vacation, which must be used every year. No carryover. I get 4 weeks PTO (vacation+sick) but can carry over up to a predetermined ceiling. I get 7 holidays. Pay increases have been in the 2% range (when we get them) for the past 10 years. Pension? What's that? You're on your own baby - including medical. Company match is laughable.
If you think what you had is typical, you're very much mistaken. You were in the auto industry which was not representative of the rest of private industry.
I understand your current situation is not good, but comparing it to something that doesn't much exist for anyone anymore is not a good comparison.
In all fairness that would be a lot more reasonable argument if the majority of those speaking about teacher being over paid didn't categorize it as it was 40 yrs ago. Most teachers work nearly 200 days a year between contracted days, pd and expected "freebies". Most teachers do not have "Cadillac" health care and many if not most are paying toward it as well (and I like you are paying $700 a month for a minimal plan for one adult and one college student). Most teachers do not get free pensions of 100k a year and in fact are paying upwards of 10% of their salary to their pensions just like others on defined benefits plans.
And not for nothing, but even McDonalds does company match up to 4%. Company match and 401k are not uncommon. Somewhere over 80% of all full time employees, not just white collar ones, which is what she was referrring to get 401k. And in the last 8 years only 12% of companies who matched, stopped doing so.
But really all of that is moot, because the real issue is most teachers signed up for lower pay than their peers with similar degrees, because of the overall package; I.e. Pay, days, insurance, pension, etc. and when everything was booming along in the 90s and people were seeing bonuses and 10% raises yearly, nobody says "well things are great let's kick some of this upturn to the teachers" and that is fine, that is. Or the type of job they signed up for but when a recession hits and everyone is seeing raises similar to a teachers step/increment than suddenly the teachers need to take the hit too. It is hypocritical to expect us to take the hit but never get the boom. Most of us signed on for the trade off lower pay for stability and benefits, changing that equation now, especially for those about to retire with 30 yrs of not seeing any of the boon, is just wrong. If you want to change our compensation package for young teachers go ahead, but leave the ones who have no time to get out alone.
In all fairness that would be a lot more reasonable argument if the majority of those speaking about teacher being over paid didn't categorize it as it was 40 yrs ago. Most teachers work nearly 200 days a year between contracted days, pd and expected "freebies". Most teachers do not have "Cadillac" health care and many if not most are paying toward it as well (and I like you are paying $700 a month for a minimal plan for one adult and one college student). Most teachers do not get free pensions of 100k a year and in fact are paying upwards of 10% of their salary to their pensions just like others on defined benefits plans.
And not for nothing, but even McDonalds does company match up to 4%. Company match and 401k are not uncommon. Somewhere over 80% of all full time employees, not just white collar ones, which is what she was referrring to get 401k. And in the last 8 years only 12% of companies who matched, stopped doing so.
But really all of that is moot, because the real issue is most teachers signed up for lower pay than their peers with similar degrees, because of the overall package; I.e. Pay, days, insurance, pension, etc. and when everything was booming along in the 90s and people were seeing bonuses and 10% raises yearly, nobody says "well things are great let's kick some of this upturn to the teachers" and that is fine, that is. Or the type of job they signed up for but when a recession hits and everyone is seeing raises similar to a teachers step/increment than suddenly the teachers need to take the hit too. It is hypocritical to expect us to take the hit but never get the boom. Most of us signed on for the trade off lower pay for stability and benefits, changing that equation now, especially for those about to retire with 30 yrs of not seeing any of the boon, is just wrong. If you want to change our compensation package for young teachers go ahead, but leave the ones who have no time to get out alone.
I fully understand that teachers in some parts of the country are underpaid. In some cases significantly. I just tire of some posters constant implications that the rest of the world -private sector- is living the high life. The workplace has changed significantly over the last 30 years. For most of us, not just teachers. More work, less support, fewer benefits - just because companies have a match to their 401k, doesn't mean it's a significant or meaningful match, medical is expensive, actually taking the vacation you've earned is challenging and in many cases you still need to be somewhat available and the work that didn't get done while you were gone makes you wonder if it was even worth it.
I'm not unsympathetic to teachers. I have numerous family members who teach and I know it's a uniquely challenging job. I get that. But the idea that everyone else is vastly better off to the degree some posters imply is just not the case.
@lkb0714-I haven't read through this whole thread recently, but I do not recall one post about teachers being overpaid. Some (many) have pointed out that the pay is not *that* low, comparatively.
Not quite true with your 1st paragraph, at least for many states (including mine).
Not only did I take a major's worth of education classes, but I was actually required to take 6 hours more (in both my undergraduate degrees of Chemistry and Biology) to get teaching endorsements than to get the actual degrees. IOW, to teach both those subjects at the high school level, I had to take more classes in each of those subjects than my university required for their actual degrees. Not a problem, as I took grad courses and helped my to further those degrees. But still...
I can't speak for your program, but what I saw was they had to take fewer and lessor hours than degree majors. Yes, they took courses in XYZ, but most definitely not the same material. While I took many Gen Ed and Liberal Arts electives in classes with Ed majors, not once did an Ed major take one of ours. Just for grins to see if things had changed, I went to the college catalog where DD attends and compared. Still pretty much the same.
So it does depend on where you're trying to teach.
And don't get me wrong, but it's not enough to know your material. Being able to teach it to reluctant - if not downright belligerent - audiences is a different ballgame. Knowing classroom management skills, behavioral skills, multiple ways of presenting the materials for different styles of learning, is different than the application of your skills in the workplace.
Understand, I'm not demeaning those skills, as they do most definitely serve to aid in presentation of materials, but it doesn't take the place of the other skills needed for the classroom. Which is why the "crash" programs focus mainly on such areas.
Where I think the difference is in necessary and sufficient conditions. While I didn't become a teacher I have spent some time developing materials and programs. I've gone round and round with the EdD's who argue that all that is needed for a teacher is to be trained in teaching techniques. IE they've told me and the other SME's that "any competent instructor can teach any subject if the courseware is well done." And of course we argued back that "you can't teach what you don't know." I firmly believe that both subject matter expertise and technique are individually necessary, but not sufficient conditions. A good teacher needs both.
Since this thread is talking about pay, what I would do if I had any say on policy is provide a pay incentive for those with degrees to add the Ed courses and become teachers by closely matching what they would make with that degree on the market. IE, if a BS in Physics pays $54K for entry pay, then pay those who earn a BS in Physics with an Ed add on $54K as opposed to the somewhere around $40K that an entry teacher gets. This would provide the incentive for degree holds to add Ed and become teachers while also ameliorating the public argument against increased pay.
But those of us in the know are aware that nothing prepares one for the classroom better than the classroom itself. As a sub and a tutor, you are probably aware of much of this, no?
@lkb0714-I haven't read through this whole thread recently, but I do not recall one post about teachers being overpaid. Some (many) have pointed out that the pay is not *that* low, comparatively.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raena77
Teachers that were around too long are overpaid......
Quote:
Originally Posted by SarahRN
... I am tired of these overpaid babysitters whining about how they don't make enough....
Quote:
Originally Posted by JS1
....Teachers are overpaid....
Those are just the first three that popped up, that specifically used the word in that context. There are many more who say we work half a year, and other variations of "over paid" without using that exact term.
I fully understand that teachers in some parts of the country are underpaid. In some cases significantly. I just tire of some posters constant implications that the rest of the world -private sector- is living the high life. The workplace has changed significantly over the last 30 years. For most of us, not just teachers. More work, less support, fewer benefits - just because companies have a match to their 401k, doesn't mean it's a significant or meaningful match, medical is expensive, actually taking the vacation you've earned is challenging and in many cases you still need to be somewhat available and the work that didn't get done while you were gone makes you wonder if it was even worth it.
I'm not unsympathetic to teachers. I have numerous family members who teach and I know it's a uniquely challenging job. I get that. But the idea that everyone else is vastly better off to the degree some posters imply is just not the case.
You appear to be categorizing me as someone who thinks teachers are underpaid. I have not said that, I do think that the total compensation package is fair. We choose lower pay than our similarly degreed peers for stability and a good benefits package. But given the constant recent undermining of that benefits package it is unfair to pull the rug out from those older teachers.
Look, if people really want to keep our salaries low, and then also take our benefits, go nuts. I will go back to my industry, as I have been careful to keep my contacts up and work every summer in that field. I won't speak to every field but IT and I both hold STEM degrees. In my field, I will make more money, work less hours, and have similar benefits if the current push to gut teacher benefits goes through. IT is an engineer, we can argue about the benefits but the average high school teacher in the US is just shy of $48k a year. The average engineer is over $66k. Regardless of the change in benefits since she got out, nearly $20k difference is salary is hard to make up when you are trying to gut teacher benefits.
Besides those "highly qualified" and "highly effective" STEM teachers will have the easiest time going back to jobs whose overall compensation package is getting not just better but ridiculously better than teaching. I love my job, but I am finding it harder and harder to justify to my family why I don't work in my field. Most of my teacher friends are in a similar boat. If all or even half of those highly qualified STEM teachers go it will be bad for public education.
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.
My district hasn't given normal step increases in the entire time I've been there and there is no plan to resume giving them any time soon. We're taking a 2.5% pay cut next year and then the size of our cut the following year will be the subject of the union negotiation. If all goes well I MIGHT see a step increase in my 12th year of teaching. Some gravy train. I wonder how many people would stay in a job where they were promised yearly raises when the employer simply doesn't give them and be happy?
