Al Bundy;765703 wrote:I said some starting teachers with a family are near the poverty level. I know this data is 3 years, but even if the starting salary inceased by 3% (highly unlikely with the economy the last 3 years), lower end starting teachers are still near the poverty level if they have a family of four. http://www.ohea.org/beginning-teacher-salaries
BRF;765726 wrote:I am so sorry that I have listened to union "blather" for 35 years. Wish me luck. Maybe I will call upon you successful posters in the private sector for some tips! hahahaha!
Writerbuckeye;765793 wrote:Don't most teaching contracts (salary schedules) have step increases built into them?
BRF;765732 wrote:I see that the "sides" are now being defined. That is good.
Who cares about who started what.
Ya know, posting those poverty rating scales and trying to make it look like a first year teacher is WAY above the poverty level..........nice try.
WebFire;765800 wrote:Wow, the hypocrisy is crazy here.
And yes, even at your low starting example, the teacher was more than double poverty level. Fact.
Most of the adjunct rates are set and nonnegotiable. Good thing since you can't negotiateBRF;765836 wrote:Wow! Double the poverty level for a college grad. Frickin awesome. Meanwhile, I just listened to the Tribe and hear a "middle reliever" pitch 1 inning on his 3 Million dollar salary. Oh....I believe that they do have a union and collective bargaining. But....let's just go after the teachers that make a whopping double over the poverty level!
Al Bundy: I am looking into that "adjunct" business. Thanks for the input.
But, I will be on my own and negotiating for myself, oh my!
Hypocrisy! Pffft.
Good luck with that. I do it more because I enjoy it, and it is a way to help students than the money.
I had said a teacher with a family of four. Either you can't what was written in the post, or you can't read the table.WebFire;765800 wrote:Wow, the hypocrisy is crazy here.
And yes, even at your low starting example, the teacher was more than double poverty level. Fact.
Al Bundy;765844 wrote: I do it more because I enjoy it, and it is a way to help students than the money.
QuakerOats;765351 wrote:Bizarre. Radical change is exactly what is necessary so as to save ourselves from sending another generation of dumbed-down children out into the most competitive environment we have ever faced. Change cannot occur fast enough.
Al Bundy;765846 wrote:I had said a teacher with a family of four. Either you can't what was written in the post, or you can't read the table.
Wow, just wow. First you claim a teacher is near poverty. Then it's pointed out it's no where close and you still keep hammering on it.BRF;765836 wrote:Wow! Double the poverty level for a college grad. Frickin awesome. Meanwhile, I just listened to the Tribe and hear a "middle reliever" pitch 1 inning on his 3 Million dollar salary. Oh....I believe that they do have a union and collective bargaining. But....let's just go after the teachers that make a whopping double over the poverty level!
Al Bundy: I am looking into that "adjunct" business. Thanks for the input.
But, I will be on my own and negotiating for myself, oh my!
Hypocrisy! Pffft.
I have a college degree (Bachelors of Science) in an engineering related field and I get paid more than those without them. In my field it is extremely rare you get hired without a degree. The context of my post is comparing those that have earned college degrees and are just entering the field, should expect to be paid considerably less than an individual with a similar degree that has proven himself or holds considerable knowledge through experience. I am not comparing blue collar employees with white collar. I am not comparing teachers with janitors.Glory Days;765735 wrote:So now you dont like that people with college degrees get paid more than people without them but with more experience?
With who?Glory Days;765735 wrote:sounds like we are back at "getting even" again.
Absolutely not. All I am saying is those with more post degree experience are more likely to be those with families to support (they are older). Not those just entering the work place after earning their degree.Glory Days;765735 wrote:so just because you have a family you should be paid more?
Nobody should. I don't care who you are.Glory Days;765735 wrote:maybe those people shouldnt have started a family if they cant support one?
They should. They would have to rely heavily on their performance, knowledge, and experience.Glory Days;765735 wrote:maybe the people without degrees and with families should have negotiated better pay if they deserve it
I clarified any misunderstandings of my previous post in this one. If you still don't get it well then I thought you union people were smarter than that.Glory Days;765735 wrote:i thought you non union people were smarter than that
I first brought it up in post #2535 and I said families the very first time that I brought it. I have explained that to you several times. Now you see what teachers go through when they have to explain the same topic multiple times for those that don't learn things at the same level as everyone elseWebFire;765892 wrote:Or maybe it was Al that started the poverty thing. Hell, I've lost track.
WebFire;765679 wrote:Yes, but I also didn't start out at 30k, with good health and retirement benefits.
Some can be a very small amount. You are showing me the lowest percentile of all teachers starting wages. Now show me what percentage of that small percentage of teachers starting at the bottom percentile have families of four or five.Al Bundy;765703 wrote:I said some starting teachers with a family are near the poverty level. I know this data is 3 years, but even if the starting salary inceased by 3% (highly unlikely with the economy the last 3 years), lower end starting teachers are still near the poverty level if they have a family of four. http://www.ohea.org/beginning-teacher-salaries
majorspark;765945 wrote:Some can be a very small amount. You are showing me the lowest percentile of all teachers starting wages. Now show me what percentage of that small percentage of teachers starting at the bottom percentile have families of four or five.
Al Bundy;765957 wrote:No teacher should have a starting salary of $22,000 (I adjusted the numbers for inflation since they were 3 years old, but with pay freezes, many districts have not increased their zero step).
BRF;765836 wrote:Wow! Double the poverty level for a college grad. Frickin awesome. Meanwhile, I just listened to the Tribe and hear a "middle reliever" pitch 1 inning on his 3 Million dollar salary. Oh....I believe that they do have a union and collective bargaining. But....let's just go after the teachers that make a whopping double over the poverty level!
Al Bundy: I am looking into that "adjunct" business. Thanks for the input.
But, I will be on my own and negotiating for myself, oh my!
Hypocrisy! Pffft.
Was it radical to the point of immediate threat of collapse when teachers unionized in Ohio?georgemc80;765868 wrote:Let me reiterate, I am not pro union...in fact I am the exact opposite, however immediate, radical change, just for the sake of change is not safe when messing with the public education system. When it involves a school, there has to be research and models tested before a system wide change is implemented. The stakes are too high.
ernest_t_bass;765936 wrote:Webfire, when did you enter the workforce? I did in 2004. I started at roughly $26k. Due to inflation, it is now $30k. When BRF started, it was probably $5k. If you started in the workforce over 20 years ago, of course you didn't make $30k, and neither did teachers.
Al Bundy;765957 wrote:No teacher should have a starting salary of $22,000 (I adjusted the numbers for inflation since they were 3 years old, but with pay freezes, many districts have not increased their zero step).
Al Bundy;765934 wrote:I first brought it up in post #2535 and I said families the very first time that I brought it. I have explained that to you several times. Now you see what teachers go through when they have to explain the same topic multiple times for those that don't learn things at the same level as everyone else
How do you measure value when we are talking about an industry which does not measure its productivity with a dollar amount? As I have said before, I spent my first 8 years out of college as a teacher, and I have worked in the the private industry the last 7 years. I really don't think many of you understand how much easier the work is and how much better the pay is in the private system compared to teaching the public system. My pay is almost what it would be in the public system. I don't have to deal with discipline problems, IEP's, parents, etc. I never have to come home at night and spend 3 hours grading calculus exams.Con_Alma;766069 wrote:Salaries shouldn't be based on supporting a family of four. That's ridiculous. Salaries should be determined by value and market forces.