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.
Well yes, but just how high do you think it goes? One of the things you need to be careful of is looking past the starting pay to look at the actual scale. My fiancee will go from $43,000 to 43,600 next year-a whopping $23.00 or so more per pay check. Now again, NOT complaining-just keeping things based in reality. If she does not complete her master's degree (which she will, but lets just use this as an example) and stays in that district she will make $75,000 after 25 years. I believe 25 years with a masters degree will net her close to $90,000, but its a long, slow, climb to that point. Harping on the fact that $50K is the starting salary is misleading. The way it's being portrayed one would think that it doubles every year!
And here we touch on another problem - the scale. With a merit-based system, there would be a lower starting salary, and a quicker rise to the top for those who put in the effort, and deserve the higher pay. So whats the problem?
Also... who pays for the Masters program? Honest question.
And here we touch on another problem - the scale. With a merit-based system, there would be a lower starting salary, and a quicker rise to the top for those who put in the effort, and deserve the higher pay. So whats the problem?
You do realize that while tenure makes it difficult to fire a teacher, it's effortless to do what's called "witholding increment," which means if the teacher has tenure but is one of the schlubs you describe, they will not recieve a yearly pay increase no matter how long they stay. You can't sleep at your desk for 25 years and wake up making millions just for lasting that long.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CuCullin
Also... who pays for the Masters program? Honest question.
Tuition assistance provided by tax dollars will foot about a quarter of the bill. That's no secret. Since one of the major gripes here is the quality of teachers, would it make sense to take away an incentive to keep abreast of the latest trends and to hone their skills as educators?
You do realize that while tenure makes it difficult to fire a teacher, it's effortless to do what's called "witholding increment," which means if the teacher has tenure but is one of the schlubs you describe, they will not recieve a yearly pay increase no matter how long they stay. You can't sleep at your desk for 25 years and wake up making millions just for lasting that long.
And you get an easy paycheck for minimal efforts, and don't teach kids a damn thing.
So again, why should I not have a problem with this system as it is?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badfish740
Tuition assistance provided by tax dollars will foot about a quarter of the bill. That's no secret. Since one of the major gripes here is the quality of teachers, would it make sense to take away an incentive to keep abreast of the latest trends and to hone their skills as educators?
I didn't say it was an issue, or something to take away. It was a question, because I didn't have that information in front of me. However, like the above, someone could get their Masters, get a raise, and then sit on their butt just the same, right?
So once again, why should I not have a problem with this system as it is?
You know people need to stop taking cost of living as a rule to die by, especially on websites. In places where the cost of living is high, for example New Jersey, the pay is high(er). In places where the cost of living is low, for example Alabama, the pay is lower.
It is a little tough to get involved in a thread midstream, like you are doing. My post was responding to someone else.
Read what the person said...
Quote:
You know I thought about this thread all last night and I called one of my teacher friends in Alabama. To my shock, she agreed that 50k was extreme for first year teachers.
How can someone from Alabama tell someone from NJ that their pay is "Extreme".
Again, who are the "pro-active" parents here?
Who of you that are putting down teachers salaries have one or more children in the school system? To me it sounds like a bunch of senior citizens that I hear that only come out of the woodwork during school budget time. You know, the old people that complain about the children of today, but are dead set against having extra money go to programs for the gifted and talented.
Our "mantra" is that parents want what is best for their kids.
Pittnurse, I do believe parents want what is best for their kids in a medical situation. No problem there! But, I do believe that parents THINK they know what is best for their kids.i.e. when teachers are trying to educate their children. Teachers all over the country (especially in the suburbs) are dealing with many (not all) parents of this generation who baby their kids which hinders the teaching process - parents complain "too much homework", "why couldn't my child go out at recess?" etc etc. Most of the stuff teachers face are not big issues but a constant barrage of anger over small things from parents.
And you get an easy paycheck for minimal efforts, and don't teach kids a damn thing.
So again, why should I not have a problem with this system as it is?
I didn't say it was an issue, or something to take away. It was a question, because I didn't have that information in front of me. However, like the above, someone could get their Masters, get a raise, and then sit on their butt just the same, right?
So once again, why should I not have a problem with this system as it is?
You're a tough nut to crack I'll give ya that. Maybe I'm just a South Pacific style "cockeyed optimist," but I just have a hard time believing that there are that many awful people in education who think to themselves "If I can just stick it out in this master's program I'll get a raise and I can sit on my duff for 25 years earning enormous sums of money, all while ruining children's lives-whoopee!!!"
To me it sounds like a bunch of senior citizens that I hear that only come out of the woodwork during school budget time. You know, the old people that complain about the children of today, but are dead set against having extra money go to programs for the gifted and talented.
It never fails to crack me up that the same people who would brave an F5 tornado to vote down a school budget will scream and curse because the kid working at the McDonalds in his or her town cannot compute the senior citizen discount on their coffee in his head!
You're a tough nut to crack I'll give ya that. Maybe I'm just a South Pacific style "cockeyed optimist," but I just have a hard time believing that there are that many awful people in education who think to themselves "If I can just stick it out in this master's program I'll get a raise and I can sit on my duff for 25 years earning enormous sums of money, all while ruining children's lives-whoopee!!!"
I don't think theres so many that they are overwhelming our system now, with a 99.9% "book reader" population....
But don't you think a high starting salary, with benefits, tenure, pension, etc, without having a means to quantify their efforts and promote (ie: a raise) the good ones, and get rid of the bad ones, will attract more of these awful people?
I'm not against good money to teachers. I'm against good money without good reasons. The ones who put in even further efforts, imho, should be given bonuses of some sort. But thats just speculation as to a system I'd prefer, where teachers who do work hard, get more.
EDIT: Oh, and just one of these awful people is enough to **** me off, personally
One last comment: I don't think any of the teachers (or those who understand the teaching profession) were complaining here. I believe their responses spoke to those who do not the live the life of a teacher - the many unseen aspects of the job, that's all.
I don't think theres so many that they are overwhelming our system now, with a 99.9% "book reader" population....
But don't you think a high starting salary, with benefits, tenure, pension, etc, without having a means to quantify their efforts and promote (ie: a raise) the good ones, and get rid of the bad ones, will attract more of these awful people?
EDIT: Oh, and just one of these awful people is enough to **** me off, personally
I think that you have bad seeds in every profession though and there aren't many obvious ways to get rid of the bad ones. How many complaints have we heard about doctors overbooking, making you wait 2 hours past your apt time, just to see you for 5 minutes and charge you an obscene amount of money?
Or police officers who are accused of racial profiling and sexism and all those other isms we hate? I don't know about you but I know the only reason that I get pulled over when I'm doing 70 in a 35 is because I'm black - and I bet he got a bonus for giving me an extra ticket for not wearing my seat belt.
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.
Maybe I'm just a South Pacific style "cockeyed optimist," but I just have a hard time believing that there are that many awful people in education who think to themselves "If I can just stick it out in this master's program I'll get a raise and I can sit on my duff for 25 years earning enormous sums of money, all while ruining children's lives-whoopee!!!"
