mella;503741 wrote:I think that there might be something to not putting the burden on the taxpayer. I bet most parents would not mind paying about $3,000 a year per kid (approximate amount at St. Michaels in Dublin, OH) k-8 and about $7,000 per year per kid for 9-12 (St. Charles Prep, Columbus OH). This way parents can pay for the education they want for their kids, the taxpayer no longer foots the bill, and schools can competively compete to attract the best teachers. This would also allow schools to selectively admit students and take care of the problem student issue.

Families that can't afford to send their kids to schools can home school, without state provided curriculum and support, of course.

All sports would be pay to participate and these would cost extra, same as music, drama, etc... Extra tutoring time could be paid for out of pocket as needed.
Individual schools could teach what they deemed important and not be under the gun to teach a state or national curriculum.

This eliminates the "animosity" that might exist on both sides of the teacher pay issue. I think teachers get paid about right as it is.

This is why the general public doesn't decide things with education beyond tax levies. (I know that you are not serious about this).

LJ;503565 wrote:and the regular working person does that while working 40+ hours per week 50 weeks per year

LOL Pwned. +1.

thedynasty1998;503514 wrote: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.

Most the people making the good arguments justifying pay (and better than the teachers) aren't even teachers.

fan_from_texas;503518 wrote:Or 7 . . . or 8 . . . or 9. Teachers usually respond to this line of argument by saying, "But we have to grade papers in the evening, too!" I don't think the issue is that people don't understand how many hours teachers work; I think it tends to be that teachers don't understand how many hours the rest of us work.

One thing I also get annoyed with is when teachers state they have to grade papers at home and make lesson plans. Most professionals also take work home while working longer hours at work. Many teachers I know get a study hall hour to grade papers, plus another free period to do whatever else (lesson planning, papers, etc.) This is just in one district that I know of, other friends that teach in different districts have different schedules, some better, some worse.

Again, not knocking teachers, just the ones that complain.

redfalcon;503618 wrote:You see, this is why I am getting annoyed. Yes, I get two weeks off for Christmas, but the district over from me only gets a week. My district does not have a spring break.

People are assuming that all of the school districts in the world do the same thing as their local district or the one they went to school at.

Otherwise you are just restating what I have already said. Yes, we get more time off, but it is often not nearly as much as most people would like to think.

Ernest said it best.

If you are so jealous, then quit your job and come get a teaching job.

I would, but the teaching profession is so oversaturated with people vying for teaching jobs, it would be pointless. I know many teachers, I know just as many unemployed teachers because they can't find a vacant teaching position.

I also know many many teachers and the ALL get a free period to grade papers, etc. I don't know any that don't.

How about this?

Teacher has two years to "show what they got." In that first two year, they are paid dirt (like most of you feel teachers should be). After those two years, they are bumped up to a more respectable pay. They are put on a (let's say) 5 year period of this respectable pay. In order to get to the next "bump," or increase, in pay, they need to complete another set of evaluations, done by professionals. Again, if they pass, they are paid more.

If they don't pass, they are paid the same, and will be re-evaluated in 2 years. If they fail again after those two years, it moves to a one year probationary period. Fail again, bye-bye.

For those that pass, they are re-evaluated every 5 years. One cannot receive tenure until after at least 15 years of teaching. What say you?

ernest_t_bass;517176 wrote:For those that pass, they are re-evaluated every 5 years. One cannot receive tenure until after at least 15 years of teaching. What say you?

Can you (or someone) please explain to me the justification for tenure?

Ok, as a teacher with 12 years experience and 6 years of "real world" business..here is my opinion.

1. My salary is more than adequate. Nobody lied to me during college about my salary. Yes, my first job was 17,500 a year, but I am now at 50K.
2. If my salary is not enough there are at least another 100 days a year I could work a second job.
3. Knowing my salary expectations, I knew I couldn't marry any of the cute girls in education classes. Which is why I took an intro to business class and found a spouse there.
4. During the summer I: Watch two movies a week with my kids, read about 30 books, attend two weeks of training(paid for by district), hang out by the pool, and usually spend a week on a cruise vacation, I also go to my summer home in Belize for a couple weeks..(its where I will retire).


I don't know if I am a good teacher, but all my evaluations (adminstrator and parent)say that I am. You cannot compare me to anyone else, even in my school. I teach AP US History to sons and daughters of NASA engineers and the Drs. of the Houston Medical Center. Of course my state test scores are always 100%...its not fair to compare my scores to teachers who teach general ed students. If you want to compare me to other AP teachers, my AP scores are very good. But I do have excellent students that are motivated. So thats not fair a fair way to compare.

Basically, teachers are paid fairly. Its the job I want to do, and I do it to the best of my ability. Not everyone can teach. I generally don't judge other careers, but for some reason, an inordinate amount of people know all about my career.

Teachers are paid at the very least fairly, and ideally not enough. Yes they don't work a full year, but their job is one of the most important in this country. They are educating and shaping the minds of the next generation that will one day be running the country/world. If you have bad teachers, you're going to have an ignorant country. If anything, I think we should pay teachers more to encourage more qualified and better teachers (mostly in the math and science fields where there is more money to be had then just teaching).

My parents made the decision to send me to a private/catholic school. They felt that the quality of education from the public schools in my area were not adequate enough. I'm sure they wouldn't have spent the money they did and made the sacrifices they did to send me to a private school if they didn't feel it gave me a better opportunity for success than the local public schools.

Y-Town Steelhound;517309 wrote:If you have bad teachers, you're going to have an ignorant country. If anything, I think we should pay teachers more to encourage more qualified and better teachers (mostly in the math and science fields where there is more money to be had then just teaching).

On those two points:
1. Couldn't one assume that if teachers were paid based on performance they would have a stronger desire to be the best teacher possible, rather than being protected by the union and getting their raises based on experience rather than production? Just one way to motivate teachers to be better, IMO.
2. I absolutely think that a HS math teacher should get paid significantly more than a HS gym or history teacher.

georgemc80;517287 wrote:Ok, as a teacher with 12 years experience and 6 years of "real world" business..here is my opinion.

1. My salary is more than adequate. Nobody lied to me during college about my salary. Yes, my first job was 17,500 a year, but I am now at 50K.
2. If my salary is not enough there are at least another 100 days a year I could work a second job.
3. Knowing my salary expectations, I knew I couldn't marry any of the cute girls in education classes. Which is why I took an intro to business class and found a spouse there.
4. During the summer I: Watch two movies a week with my kids, read about 30 books, attend two weeks of training(paid for by district), hang out by the pool, and usually spend a week on a cruise vacation, I also go to my summer home in Belize for a couple weeks..(its where I will retire).


I don't know if I am a good teacher, but all my evaluations (adminstrator and parent)say that I am. You cannot compare me to anyone else, even in my school. I teach AP US History to sons and daughters of NASA engineers and the Drs. of the Houston Medical Center. Of course my state test scores are always 100%...its not fair to compare my scores to teachers who teach general ed students. If you want to compare me to other AP teachers, my AP scores are very good. But I do have excellent students that are motivated. So thats not fair a fair way to compare.

Basically, teachers are paid fairly. Its the job I want to do, and I do it to the best of my ability. Not everyone can teach. I generally don't judge other careers, but for some reason, an inordinate amount of people know all about my career.

Perfectly stated, I think most of us realize/agree with this, its when some (not nearly most or all) teachers complain about their salary that get some in the private world upset.

thedynasty1998;517374 wrote: 2. I absolutely think that a HS math teacher should get paid significantly more than a HS gym or history teacher.

You do realize that the History teacher is more than likely teaching Government and Economics, right?

ernest_t_bass;517176 wrote:How about this?

Teacher has two years to "show what they got." In that first two year, they are paid dirt (like most of you feel teachers should be). After those two years, they are bumped up to a more respectable pay. They are put on a (let's say) 5 year period of this respectable pay. In order to get to the next "bump," or increase, in pay, they need to complete another set of evaluations, done by professionals. Again, if they pass, they are paid more.

If they don't pass, they are paid the same, and will be re-evaluated in 2 years. If they fail again after those two years, it moves to a one year probationary period. Fail again, bye-bye.

For those that pass, they are re-evaluated every 5 years. One cannot receive tenure until after at least 15 years of teaching. What say you?

That's an interesting idea. What strikes me is that I know plenty of people who want to teach but can't. The (apparently) vast oversupply of teachers suggests that the perception, at least, is that teaching is a pretty good gig with pay + benefits (some intangible) that make it competitive with many other careers. That perception may be wrong (that is, students could almost universally have a better view of teacher pay/benefits than actually is the case), but I don't think that's true. In general, the marketplace seems to suggest that teachers are paid somewhat more than the market thinks they're worth, absent some sort of widespread misunderstanding of what teachers do/get.

The "don't pay us based on test scores" argument is a red herring--I've yet to hear anyone other than teachers seriously discuss that as the primary measure of merit-based pay. Pointing out that a bad idea is a bad idea doesn't do much to the rest of the argument, namely, that there is virtual unanimity among principals, teachers, parents, and kids as to which teachers are "good" (whatever that means) and which ones are "bad." If essentially everyone agrees on these points, then why not pay those "good" teachers more? This would encourage quality people to enter and stay in the profession, while encouraging not-so-quality people to move on to something else. We've hashed out several metrics on the Huddle/OC over the years on this topic, so I don't think it's worth breaking down all the points again. But generally, if you're a teacher who thinks you're better than average, why would you be opposed to a system that would pay you more?

ernest_t_bass;517392 wrote:You do realize that the History teacher is more than likely teaching Government and Economics, right?

Econ was taught by our business teacher.

And yes, I don't think government teachers should be paid equally as Math and Science.

fan_from_texas;517394 wrote:But generally, if you're a teacher who thinks you're better than average, why would you be opposed to a system that would pay you more?

What if the football coach is a terrible teacher (I'm talking TURRIBLE, especially during FB season) but the kids, parents, and community LOVE him! People are not going to get rid of him based on your "system."

thedynasty1998;517399 wrote:Econ was taught by our business teacher.

And yes, I don't think government teachers should be paid equally as Math and Science.

Econ is one of those classes that can be taught by either business or SS teachers.

ernest_t_bass;517402 wrote:What if the football coach is a terrible teacher (I'm talking TURRIBLE, especially during FB season) but the kids, parents, and community LOVE him! People are not going to get rid of him based on your "system."

The extracurriculars that a teacher is involved with can be factored into their performance.

thedynasty1998;517410 wrote:The extracurriculars that a teacher is involved with can be factored into their performance.

That is retarded. You just stated that it is "OK" to be a piss-poor teacher, as long as you are a good coach?

ernest_t_bass;517411 wrote:That is retarded. You just stated that it is "OK" to be a piss-poor teacher, as long as you are a good coach?

When I first read that, I thought you were saying he was a bad football coach and everyone loved him. I couldn't imagine that happening to even the nicest guy.

Now that I understand your example I think they should just let him teach gym or health. (That's what my school did)

ernest_t_bass;517411 wrote:That is retarded. You just stated that it is "OK" to be a piss-poor teacher, as long as you are a good coach?

That's not what I'm saying. I don't think that being a coach cancels out being a poor teacher, but maybe an average teacher that is involved in extracurriculars has more value than a slightly better teacher who is home at 3:30 every day.

A good coach can teach more on a field than a great teacher can in a classroom.

thedynasty1998;517414 wrote:That's not what I'm saying. I don't think that being a coach cancels out being a poor teacher, but maybe an average teacher that is involved in extracurriculars has more value than a slightly better teacher who is home at 3:30 every day.

A good coach can teach more on a field than a great teacher can in a classroom.

By doing this, you are just opening up a HUGE can of worms and loopholes for people to try and "beat" the system. Bottom line is, no matter what you do, there will ALWAYS be poor teachers that continue to teach, and there will ALWAYS be fantastic teachers that get let go. These fantastic teachers get let go right know b/c of dissenting opinions of these teachers. We're most likely to see this happen on the athletic field, where Coach A gets let go b/c the Super's kid, or the board member's kid didn't get enough playing time. The same thing happens to classroom teachers.

Anyone ever read Freakanomics?

There was one case study in there that's interesting and relevant to this topic. In regard to the question "teachers shape the minds of tomorrow's leaders"...When controlling for other confounding variables (such as family income, education of the parents, other socio-economic factors etc...) they found no significant difference in test scores/performance among schools. I don't think that's necessarily surprising as bright students can pick-up mostly simple concepts throughout elementary and HS with good texts. Truthfully the quality of education at the college level is where minds start to really grow and develop.

Would be interesting to compare with kids who are home schooled. I doubt you can claim the ability of the parent doing the home schooling is as good or better. You may attribute the success to parent involvement and the extra attention, which would be consistent with the findings in Freakanomics. The parent being actively involved is a much bigger difference maker. That's what the data suggests.

Gut... What are your implications, though? Just curious.

The only teaching jobs ive ever heard of head football coaches having are PE, health, and art. Those aren't necessarily hard classes to teach

Pick6;517511 wrote:The only teaching jobs ive ever heard of head football coaches having are PE, health, and art. Those aren't necessarily hard classes to teach

So, you are de-valuing that content. You don't think, especially with our national obesity problem, that Health and PE are important classes? You don't think that teaching a respect for life-long fitness is important? How about an appreciation for the arts? Art is what spurs the imagination in most children, so is it something we want to de-value?

I'm more-or-less just trying to play devil's advocate here.

ernest_t_bass;517531 wrote:So, you are de-valuing that content. You don't think, especially with our national obesity problem, that Health and PE are important classes? You don't think that teaching a respect for life-long fitness is important? How about an appreciation for the arts? Art is what spurs the imagination in most children, so is it something we want to de-value?

I'm more-or-less just trying to play devil's advocate here.

Maybe there is a correlation to shitty teachers (coaches) teaching those classes and the national obesity problem.