Yeah, I teach in a very rural school district that is 40 miles wide and in the southwestish region....and for giggles I drive 65 miles 1 way to school everyday. Not many teachers can say that....nor would they want to.

I also coached varsity and jr hgh, boys and girls cross country and track for 5 years...with no assistants....for about $5,000 per year.

This thread pops up from time to time, and I'm surprised it has gone this far without getting ugly.

Teachers earn pretty good comp considering the level of education/credentials/hours/etc. that go into the work. Some teachers are overpaid, and some are underpaid. My preference would be to pay the good teachers more and the bad teachers less, and we're starting to see that in a few schools districts. Let's hope it catches on in the rest of the country.

ccrunner609;501923 wrote:there is no possible way to award pay based on merit and even be close to being fair. If any person has ever sat in a classroom and thought how someone was going to get merit pay based on how 25+ kids perform would come out of that and realize its a bad idea.

Disagree. There are plenty of possible ways to aware pay based on merit for teachers and have it close to being fair. This is how it's done in virtually every other industry, no matter how soft/unquantifiable the factors are. The fact that there is virtual unanimity among parents, teachers, and students as to who the good teachers are and the bad teachers are suggests that there are certain distinguishing factors between teachers. If everyone knows who the good ones are, why not pay them more?

I agree wholeheartedly that a simplistic, sole-metric approach isn't feasible. But that's not what I (nor the proponents of merit pay) suggest. Like every other industry in the world, the approach would have to be multi-faceted and look at a lot of different aspects, some directly measurable and others not.

Tiernan;501134 wrote:As a comparison to a first year teacher - first year enlisted Army & Navy recruits earn $1,365/ mo. Are we as a Nation proud of that fact?

Given the conditions in some of the inner-city districts, I'd say their teachers may be as deserving of combat pay as a soldier serving in Afghanistan.

Of course, according to my brethren in Dublin and Upper Arlington, Hilliard --is-- inner city.

ccrunner609;501923 wrote:there is no possible way to award pay based on merit and even be close to being fair. If any person has ever sat in a classroom and thought how someone was going to get merit pay based on how 25+ kids perform would come out of that and realize its a bad idea.

It's not at all a unique situation. Happens all the time in nearly every other line of work. Subjective != Unfair

wkfan;501457 wrote:...

If it is so good...why doesn't everybody do it??

..because as good as it is there are even better options out there.

fan_from_texas;501938 wrote:Disagree. There are plenty of possible ways to aware pay based on merit for teachers and have it close to being fair. This is how it's done in virtually every other industry, no matter how soft/unquantifiable the factors are. The fact that there is virtual unanimity among parents, teachers, and students as to who the good teachers are and the bad teachers are suggests that there are certain distinguishing factors between teachers. If everyone knows who the good ones are, why not pay them more?

I agree wholeheartedly that a simplistic, sole-metric approach isn't feasible. But that's not what I (nor the proponents of merit pay) suggest. Like every other industry in the world, the approach would have to be multi-faceted and look at a lot of different aspects, some directly measurable and others not.

That will never work. Try teaching in an inner city school. Most of the time it isnt the teachers fault the kids are failing. And good luck trying to find students and parents who care about their teachers to want them to get paid more or less.

Cat Food Flambe';501951 wrote:Given the conditions in some of the inner-city districts, I'd say their teachers may be as deserving of combat pay as a soldier serving in Afghanistan.

go to youngstown city schools, they literally had a jail cell in one classroom. Then again, that is what happens when you have elementary kids kicking pregnant teachers in the stomach or pushing them downstairs.

^^^^ People in other lines of work deal with unfair circumstances they are dealt with as well. What many employers do is adjust the metrics of issues to determine whether someone is entitled to a merit increase. For instance, say you are the general manager of a large grocery store with locations all over the state/country. You have one person who is the GM of said store in the inner city and the other guy who is the GM of said store in an affluent area. In this instance, it is unfair for the first GM who likely is facing a poorer (likely paying with food stamps) and smaller customer base to reach the same sales goals as the GM in an affluent area. The company will set different sales goals for both individuals based on the cards they are dealt with. However, the company will expect they both reach the goals to company gives them. There are other disadvantages the GM faces in the inner city the guy in the affluent doesn't face (ie. theft, vandalism, etc.) but I think I have made my point.

Yea, I don't get the arguments about inner city compared to the suburbs in terms of judging a teacher's results or effectiveness. I don't have an answer on how to do it, but there is certainly a way to do it. People are rewarded in most all professions, other than teachers. As long as teacher shows up everyday, they have a job until they retire. I think the best teachers should get paid the most, or even that math teachers should get paid more than a physical education teacher, but that's just not how the systems setup.

Glory Days;502137 wrote:That will never work. Try teaching in an inner city school. Most of the time it isnt the teachers fault the kids are failing. And good luck trying to find students and parents who care about their teachers to want them to get paid more or less.

As others have pointed out, every other profession seems to find a way to adjust for circumstances, and it seems that there are certainly objective/subjective metrics we could apply to teachers in urban schools to get some idea of quality. Again, the fact that a system is not 100% perfect is no reason to avoid it entirely--e.g., in baseball, it is not always the case that a .400 hitter is a better player and deserves more money than a .250 hitter (especially if the .400 guy plays in a hitter's park, and the .250 plays in a pitcher's park), but that doesn't mean we entirely dismiss batting average as a metric in comparing players. If you aggregate numerous imperfect measures, you can get some snippet of quality.

My fundamental argument is that in every school I've been in or around, there is a consensus on which teachers are better than others. If everyone can already recognize this, how can it be the case that it is impossible to determine it? Shouldn't we pay our better teachers more?

ccrunner609;501923 wrote:there is no possible way to award pay based on merit and even be close to being fair. If any person has ever sat in a classroom and thought how someone was going to get merit pay based on how 25+ kids perform would come out of that and realize its a bad idea.

I disagree, they do it on the college level. Professors get evaluated for every class they teach, and that combined with their research and other performances helps determine their raises.

Not only that but K-12 education seems to be the only "industry" in the US that doesn't use some "metric" to determine pay increases, well, them and unions.

You don't compare a teacher in inner city youngstown to a teacher in Upper Arlington.

You compare a teacher in inner city Youngstown to a teacher in inner city Youngstown.

You can track each student and see how they perform better or worse each year depending on their teacher and average out over all the students. That's a metric that can be used among other things like attendance/puncuality (used in most private evaluations), ability to work with others (at work, other teachers/admin, etc), and other subjective things that go into private sector's evaluations.

fan_from_texas;502208 wrote:As others have pointed out, every other profession seems to find a way to adjust for circumstances, and it seems that there are certainly objective/subjective metrics we could apply to teachers in urban schools to get some idea of quality. Again, the fact that a system is not 100% perfect is no reason to avoid it entirely--e.g., in baseball, it is not always the case that a .400 hitter is a better player and deserves more money than a .250 hitter (especially if the .400 guy plays in a hitter's park, and the .250 plays in a pitcher's park), but that doesn't mean we entirely dismiss batting average as a metric in comparing players. If you aggregate numerous imperfect measures, you can get some snippet of quality.

My fundamental argument is that in every school I've been in or around, there is a consensus on which teachers are better than others. If everyone can already recognize this, how can it be the case that it is impossible to determine it? Shouldn't we pay our better teachers more?

jmog;502235 wrote:I disagree, they do it on the college level. Professors get evaluated for every class they teach, and that combined with their research and other performances helps determine their raises.

Not only that but K-12 education seems to be the only "industry" in the US that doesn't use some "metric" to determine pay increases, well, them and unions.

You don't compare a teacher in inner city youngstown to a teacher in Upper Arlington.

You compare a teacher in inner city Youngstown to a teacher in inner city Youngstown.

You can track each student and see how they perform better or worse each year depending on their teacher and average out over all the students. That's a metric that can be used among other things like attendance/puncuality (used in most private evaluations), ability to work with others (at work, other teachers/admin, etc), and other subjective things that go into private sector's evaluations.

Other private professions or public professions? they seem to be right in line with just about every other public job I think. I don’t know too many public jobs that work that way other than just pay increases for time in service etc. And you cant compare college professors, apples and oranges.

Teachers already get caught in the habit of teaching just so kids pass their proficiency tests, just imagine if now their pay was based on their kid’s scores on those test.

Teachers suck. They are outright sucky people. Many people who I know are teachers are teachers because they can not function in the business or "real world." Like the old saying goes "If you can't do, teach!" In regard to teachers who bitch and moan about their pay, I know many people who would die for stable working hours, being able to spend time with their kids, a strong pension plan, and the summer off, very stable working environment which (usually) doesn't change with regards to the overall economic picture.

I was wondering how long it would take for a true blue hater to show up.

ClayAikenation;502662 wrote:Teachers suck. They are outright sucky people. Many people who I know are teachers are teachers because they can not function in the business or "real world." Like the old saying goes "If you can't do, teach!" In regard to teachers who bitch and moan about their pay, I know many people who would die for stable working hours, being able to spend time with their kids, a strong pension plan, and the summer off, very stable working environment which (usually) doesn't change with regards to the overall economic picture.

Apparently Clay was picked on in school and the teachers did not step in and stop it.

Glory Days;502590 wrote:Other private professions or public professions? they seem to be right in line with just about every other public job I think. I don’t know too many public jobs that work that way other than just pay increases for time in service etc.

I think that's part of the frustration many people have. Private jobs aren't like that; we're reviewed routinely and don't receive mandatory raises. Why should teachers get a free pass that those of us in the private sector don't get?

Teachers already get caught in the habit of teaching just so kids pass their proficiency tests, just imagine if now their pay was based on their kid’s scores on those test.

Who is suggesting that? No one on here has said that we should pay teachers based on test scores. I (and others) have repeatedly said that teachers should be paid on merit. Simply looking at test scores doesn't strike me as a good indicator of merit.

The subject of teachers' pay during their term is interesting, but I don't think there is any doubt that they have a retirement system that is the envy of all workers. Just speaking for myself, there is no concept of 'retirement' in my lifetime, yet my father (a retired public school teacher) has a pension that would be worth at least $1M if someone purchased an annuity with that yearly payout.

Give it up for my Dad! He's a millionaire. How the Ohio taxpayers pay for it is beyond me.

ClayAikenation;502662 wrote:Teachers suck. They are outright sucky people. Many people who I know are teachers are teachers because they can not function in the business or "real world." Like the old saying goes "If you can't do, teach!" In regard to teachers who bitch and moan about their pay, I know many people who would die for stable working hours, being able to spend time with their kids, a strong pension plan, and the summer off, very stable working environment which (usually) doesn't change with regards to the overall economic picture.

How about you go thank the teacher who taught you to read and write and then show them this post. Go screw yourself.

On a lighter note, I voted not enough based on the starting salaries of some of my friends who teach in Ohio. A buddy of mine has about 3 years experience and a masters and only makes around $25,000. Thats way too low for anyone.

Also, Lol at the idea of only working nine months out of the year. Lets think about this. Most School districts start in mid August and go well into June. Also, teachers have to be at school a couple of weeks before the school year starts and often stay a few days late.

I am by no means trying to deny that we get time off in the summer, but keep in mind that just because your kids aren't in school doesn't mean we aren't. During the summer we also are required by law to take classes or professional development, often at our own expense. Sure we get a few weeks off, but it is by no means anywhere close to three months. more like 1, maybe 1 1/2.

Also, unless you want massive unemployment and welfare lines for three months a year, this argument needs to stop. Seriously, we may get time off in the summer, but it doesn't mean we get a reprieve from bills, food, gas, etc.

redfalcon;503087 wrote:How about you go thank the teacher who taught you to read and write and then show them this post. Go screw yourself.

On a lighter note, I voted not enough based on the starting salaries of some of my friends who teach in Ohio. A buddy of mine has about 3 years experience and a masters and only makes around $25,000. Thats way too low for anyone.

Also, Lol at the idea of only working nine months out of the year. Lets think about this. Most School districts start in mid August and go well into June. Also, teachers have to be at school a couple of weeks before the school year starts and often stay a few days late.

I am by no means trying to deny that we get time off in the summer, but keep in mind that just because your kids aren't in school doesn't mean we aren't. During the summer we also are required by law to take classes or professional development, often at our own expense. Sure we get a few weeks off, but it is by no means anywhere close to three months. more like 1, maybe 1 1/2.

Also, unless you want massive unemployment and welfare lines for three months a year, this argument needs to stop. Seriously, we may get time off in the summer, but it doesn't mean we get a reprieve from bills, food, gas, etc.

My skidmarks make better arguments than this trash. Besides solely defending that instead of getting, O 2 1/2 months off, you have worked your way to 5 weeks. Bravo! Bravo! Obviously you are a 1st grade reading teacher, rather than a High School composition teacher because there are glaring holes in your argument.

If I were to grade your defense to the argument (what I wrote), it would be graded against the topics I presented.
1.) Teachers are not necessarily suited well for the more competitive business world
2.) Strong job perks including working school hours, being around your kid presumably, strong pension/retirement plan, summer hours limited

After re-reading your response, I would have to give you a 20/100 or a 20%. You only defended upon your summer hours (in a roundabout, slippery slope kinda way) while discarding my other arguments, as well as missing the larger picture.

Folks, that is why I strongly believe in that many teachers are not very brilliant or smart people. Most of the kids who I grew up with who became teachers were kids struggling to read/ write/ wipe their ass and except for 1 standout, are not very quick thinkers. I respect what they do for society, but as for advancing society as a whole, please...

thedynasty1998;501089 wrote:Now that is an interesting point of view.

By market you mean taxpayers? How can a school district operate in the red, yet say they are paying market worth?

Are schools not paid by property taxes? If property values have decreased by 6% over the last few years, should teachers pay not also be decreased?

Or they could trim their operating budget whereever they like to absorb the loss of 6% of their incoming tax revenue.

IMO, some teachers and educators are a tad overpaid. They have the best schedules ever. Summers off, all holidays off and weekends off. I have many friends that are teachers and they love it for the schedule alone (not all, but some). I know teachers have to do lesson plans and take work home by grading papers, but guess what......there is tons of jobs that take their work home too and put in just as many, if not, more hours.

I agree with some on here that state that teachers should be paid what the labor market dictates. If people are willing to vote and pass levies to raise taxes to increase school funding, IMO, they are essentially saying they're ok with giving teachers more money. But when schools are operating in the red, it's time to start cutting the budget and if that involves teachers making less or freezing wage increases, so be it. Many other professions in the private secotr have had to take wage freezes and pay cuts, why should teachers or any public sector employee be immune to this?

fan_from_texas;502940 wrote: Who is suggesting that? No one on here has said that we should pay teachers based on test scores. I (and others) have repeatedly said that teachers should be paid on merit. Simply looking at test scores doesn't strike me as a good indicator of merit.

its not a good indicator, but what is?

Time Off/Summers - Summers was originated for farmers. Memorial day through Labor day. Wasn't to give teachers a break.

Holidays - I'd work during Holidays. I'd work during a Spring Break. But it's the kids and their families we are dealing with. We could give them a couple days during Christmas break, but we'd deal with a ton of kids being absent here and there b/c their families have different schedules, etc.

State says 180 school days. Teachers are paid based on working 180 days, not 365. I think we're paid just right.

Glory Days;503291 wrote:its not a good indicator, but what is?

I said "simply," though I was using it more in the sense of "only." I think we should look at a wide variety of metrics, subjective and objective, to form a better picture of which teachers are the best. I'm sure McKinsey could come in and devise a way to measure this meaningfully.

redfalcon;503087 wrote:How about you go thank the teacher who taught you to read and write and then show them this post. Go screw yourself.

On a lighter note, I voted not enough based on the starting salaries of some of my friends who teach in Ohio. A buddy of mine has about 3 years experience and a masters and only makes around $25,000. Thats way too low for anyone.

Also, Lol at the idea of only working nine months out of the year. Lets think about this. Most School districts start in mid August and go well into June. Also, teachers have to be at school a couple of weeks before the school year starts and often stay a few days late.

I am by no means trying to deny that we get time off in the summer, but keep in mind that just because your kids aren't in school doesn't mean we aren't. During the summer we also are required by law to take classes or professional development, often at our own expense. Sure we get a few weeks off, but it is by no means anywhere close to three months. more like 1, maybe 1 1/2.

Also, unless you want massive unemployment and welfare lines for three months a year, this argument needs to stop. Seriously, we may get time off in the summer, but it doesn't mean we get a reprieve from bills, food, gas, etc.

I'm on "your side" that teachers are paid just fine, not too much, not too little. However, don't give me the "we still got bills in the summer" BS, almost every teacher I've ever talked to gets their 10 month salary stretched into 12 and while its hard sometimes to find summer employment, a teacher can work as much or as little in the summer to make more money than their salary.

Did a teacher really get on here and try to claim that they only get one month off over the summer? Give me a break.

And then they complain that they have to stay a couple hours after school, guess what, the rest of the world works until 5 or 6 anyways.

People have made good arguments on here justifying pay, but when a teacher comes on here and makes the statements they did, it really makes them look foolish.