Great article on Westchester taxes (New York, Plattsburgh: school districts, colleges, teacher salaries)

[havoc315]

Originally Posted by dma1250

Simply throwing money at things never solved anything. However, money well spent can make a huge difference.

And, by the way, Scarsdale doesn't have the best schools, it has the best test scores. Two very different things.

Short of something ground-breaking, I think I've had it with this thread...

Then you would probably also agree, that the school districts with the highest teacher salaries, don't necessarily have the best schools?

In fact, many private schools, with significantly lower pay, often are far superior to many public schools, with much higher pay.

[havoc315]

Originally Posted by dma1250

Yes, that is why I wrote "I don't want them to stay teaching just for the money---the best people will always be able to make a lot more than the highest paid veteran teacher does." Please take the time to read before responding.

Beyond that, you're just repeating yourself.

I did read your whole post. You're missing the point. You basically say, that you don't want your company to poach the best teachers. And that your company is willing to pay the very best teachers 200k to poach them.

But it what you are missing --- That's the free market at work. That was the point I was making with Bill Gates, etc. Your company isn't paying teachers 200k out of generosity. They are paying them 200k, because that's how much it costs to lure a teacher away from their September-June 130k job + pension.

If the school started paying 200k, then your company would start offering teachers 250k.

If schools reduced their salaries to 60k, then your company would likely adjust the compensation packages to 80k.

The teachers that left 120k/year jobs to join your company and earn 200k -- They didn't leave because they were in poverty as teachers. They left, because your company needs experienced teachers, and was therefore willing to pay more than the schools, and the teachers saw a nice profit incentive.

So no matter when you set teacher salaries, since your company needs experienced teachers, your company will exceed those salaries.

[dma1250]

Havoc,

One would think that, being a lawyer, you might get tired of arguing for the sake of arguing. Guess not.

Yes, I would certainly agree that paying teachers a "high" salary is not a guarantee of having the "best" schools. There is no single thing that automatically creates great schools. But most educators and researchers would say that the single most important ingredient to having a great school is the quality of the teachers. So anything a school does to attract and retain the very best teachers is money well spent.

As for your theory about market forces and salaries, that's absurd. Salaries in educational publishing are not set in relation to what Westchester teachers earn. They are set by competition with other publishing companies. Teachers "poached" from Westchester don't get paid more than those coming from lower-paying districts. If the top salaries of Westchester teachers dropped, salaries in educational publishing wouldn't drop at all since companies would still compete with each other for the best people.

I realize I said this before, but I am now truly tired of the topic. Let's think of something new to argue about.

[havoc315]

Originally Posted by dma1250

Havoc,



As for your theory about market forces and salaries, that's absurd. Salaries in educational publishing are not set in relation to what Westchester teachers earn. They are set by competition with other publishing companies. Teachers "poached" from Westchester don't get paid more than those coming from lower-paying districts. If the top salaries of Westchester teachers dropped, salaries in educational publishing wouldn't drop at all since companies would still compete with each other for the best people.

I realize I said this before, but I am now truly tired of the topic. Let's think of something new to argue about.

I find this to be an interesting discussion, I mean nothing personal.

The free market sets salaries across professions, not just industry. Thus, for example, if a publisher wanted to hire a licensed physician to edit a medical text book, they would have to pay far more than hiring a recent-graduate English major to edit a romance novel.

I won't claim to know the specifics of your company or industry. I have only known 1 or 2 people that worked specifically in educational publishing, but I do know quite a few people that work/have worked for some major publishers. And in general terms, the compensation was pretty low compared to other fields. (Only high-level executives really made over 100k-- editors usually made under 50k).
Maybe you can provide more specifics... But I just can't imagine very many jobs in Educational publishing where a typical good teacher could be offered a salary of 200k. Based on the credentials you indicated were necessary, my relatives who are teachers (and I'm biased to believe they are very good teachers), would even qualify.

My question is quite simple -- How much does it cost to attract a good gym teacher. How much does it cost to attract a good general education 2nd grade teacher. How much does it cost to attract a good biology teacher. (Arguably, the system should be changed so that the biology teacher earns more than the gym teacher, simply because it costs more to attract a good biologist).

Westchester schools already pay more than enough to attracted extremely highly qualified candidates -- they are banging down the doors. I have a friend, with a PhD in Chemistry from a prestigious university... He can't get a job in a Westchester school, because there are just so many candidates banging down the doors for very few openings (In Chappaqua H.S. for example, 95% of the teachers have been there for over 3 years, and 64% have advanced degrees according to greatschools.org... In Scarsale, 99% have been there for more than 3 years, and over 70% have advanced degrees, Bronxville, 94% have been there for over 3 years, and 75% have advanced degrees ---- The State average is 90% more than 3 years, and only 33% with advanced degrees. So clearly, Westchester schools, at their current pay, already do a far superior job of retaining teachers, and attracting the most qualified teachers).

[dma1250]

Oh, I just can't help myself...

Originally Posted by havoc315

...So clearly, Westchester schools, at their current pay, already do a far superior job of retaining teachers, and attracting the most qualified teachers).

EXACTLY!!!! Westchester schools do a far better job of attracting and retaining high quality teachers because (in large part) they have higher than average pay, especially for veterans. I've never suggested there should be raises, God forbid. I'm arguing for maintaining the current pay --but only for the very best veteran teachers. The point is that if you reduce pay, you reduce the schools' ability to attract and retain those top-notch people.

As for your other comments, I'm not taking it personally either, I'm just bored and I feel like we're both repeating ourselves now. Although I do get p-d off when people diss teachers. I taught for years and it is a hell of a job. And, yes, publishing is low-paid for New York standards--but your numbers for educational publishing are way off (at least for the NYC area). The lowest starting salary for an editor with any teaching experience is over 50K, usually closer to 75K.

[havoc315]

Originally Posted by dma1250

Oh, I just can't help myself...



EXACTLY!!!! Westchester schools do a far better job of attracting and retaining high quality teachers because (in large part) they have higher than average pay, especially for veterans. I've never suggested there should be raises, God forbid. I'm arguing for maintaining the current pay --but only for the very best veteran teachers. The point is that if you reduce pay, you reduce the schools' ability to attract and retain those top-notch people.

As for your other comments, I'm not taking it personally either, I'm just bored and I feel like we're both repeating ourselves now. Although I do get p-d off when people diss teachers. I taught for years and it is a hell of a job. And, yes, publishing is low-paid for New York standards--but your numbers for educational publishing are way off (at least for the NYC area). The lowest starting salary for an editor with any teaching experience is over 50K, usually closer to 75K.

You were advocating paying teachers as much as 200k, which I believe is higher than any current salaries in Westchester, so I was under the impression you thought they should be paid even higher.

I have not dissed teachers. I have great respect for teachers. I think it is a noble profession. And it does upset me when people treat teachers as lowly employees. I do see them as white collar professionals.

Again, I didn't know the numbers for educational publishing, I was more familiar with the numbers for main stream publishers. But I think you illustrated my point... In the New York area, teachers start around 45-50+k per year. If they stick around teaching for a few years, then they would qualify as a 75 editor in the private market. Or they could make a similar amount in the school, where they get a better pension, better time-off, and better benefits.

For most teachers, I just don't see plum opportunities in the private sector awaiting them.

I am not saying that NO teacher should make 150k. Take an exceptional teacher, who teaches a difficult subject, who puts in the extra mile, who really affects the lives of his or her students, I don't object to that teacher making 150k.

I do object to teachers automatically reaching a salary of nearly 150k, just from sticking around for 15-20 years.

I do object to paying specific types of teachers far far far more than they could possibly make in the private sector. (I value physical education, but is there really a reason for a junior high school gym teacher to make 150k?)

I don't think 6-figure salaries need to be the norm for Westchester teachers. I think such salaries should be the exception for the best teachers, not the rule for the bulk of teachers.

[dma1250]

Originally Posted by havoc315

You were advocating paying teachers as much as 200k, which I believe is higher than any current salaries in Westchester, so I was under the impression you thought they should be paid even higher.

I have not dissed teachers. I have great respect for teachers. I think it is a noble profession. And it does upset me when people treat teachers as lowly employees. I do see them as white collar professionals.

Again, I didn't know the numbers for educational publishing, I was more familiar with the numbers for main stream publishers. But I think you illustrated my point... In the New York area, teachers start around 45-50+k per year. If they stick around teaching for a few years, then they would qualify as a 75 editor in the private market. Or they could make a similar amount in the school, where they get a better pension, better time-off, and better benefits.

For most teachers, I just don't see plum opportunities in the private sector awaiting them.

I am not saying that NO teacher should make 150k. Take an exceptional teacher, who teaches a difficult subject, who puts in the extra mile, who really affects the lives of his or her students, I don't object to that teacher making 150k.

I do object to teachers automatically reaching a salary of nearly 150k, just from sticking around for 15-20 years.

I do object to paying specific types of teachers far far far more than they could possibly make in the private sector. (I value physical education, but is there really a reason for a junior high school gym teacher to make 150k?)

I don't think 6-figure salaries need to be the norm for Westchester teachers. I think such salaries should be the exception for the best teachers, not the rule for the bulk of teachers.

My point from the get go was that salaries are good as they are, as long as they are given based on merit, and that they are needed so that Westchester continues to attract and retain high-level teachers

On the salary comparison, your numbers are off, again. The teacher making 50K-60K can get a job in the public sector making 75K or more and they can be making close to or over 200K when they would still be making 100K as a teacher. They'll miss the vacation, but the 401K is matched up to 6%, the hours are easier, and the work is dramatically less stressfull. Its a good deal.

And you really are just repeating yourself.

[havoc315]

Very few teachers would have any opportunities to make 200k in the private sector. But we will simply agree to disagree.

[Walter Greenspan]

Originally Posted by havoc315

Very few teachers would have any opportunities to make 200k in the private sector.

Especially true for the majority of teachers that come from the bottom-third of their high school graduating class!

[dma1250]

Originally Posted by Walter Greenspan

Especially true for the majority of teachers that come from the bottom-third of their high school graduating class!

Walter, not that I believe that absurd "factoid" for a second, but what on earth makes you think that someone's rank in high school class bears any resemblance whatstoever to their success in their chosen profession? I sincerely doubt that college or grad school class rank has any relationship to who does their job well, and I'm positive that high school rank doesn't.

The people from my high school class who did well all seem to have boring mid-level positons now. The ones who have been most succesful in adulthood were all total nut cases in high school.