Is the U.S. behind in the sciences?

[Thunhus]

What?!? Where on earth did you hear that?

I mean, this conversation is in context of the Western world, right? Poor Eastern European countries are really no more relevant to the conversation than poor African countries are. I know of no Western country which starts teaching kids to read at seven.

We start school at seven year old here in Finland. Despite it we have quite a good results.

Thunhus

 

[d20fool]

The money really does suck

d20fool,

What grade/subject(s) do you teach? What is your yearly salary for the regular September-June or so school year? Also, do or could you make extra money from the school or school district for coaching sports, teaching summer school, etc? If so how much does or could that pay add up to? Finally, is your income close to the national average for teachers with your job description?

I have always heard complaints about the low pay of teachers, but I have never had a clear picture of just how much money it is that teachers make. Without that it is tough to tell whether or not their pay is "fair". Some folks would consider $40,000 chump change and insufficient to pay the bills. Others would consider it a "pretty good job". The same could be said of $30,000 or $70,000. Give us some numbers here? I can't see paying somebody $150,000/yr to teach 4 year olds to spell C-A-T, but if there are guys teaching Calculus to 17 year olds for $6/hour that's probably silly too.

You'll forgive me if I don't lay out all my finances online, but here's a run down. I am a educated professional with a Master's degree and a BA in English from CU-Denver, an accredited and academically rigorous school. If I were in any other profession, I should expect a base pay of $50K for my first year out of school, earning possibly up to $80K (or far more) by the end of my career. This is what you will find for engineers and lawyers, you have a comparable amount of education and ceritification as we do.

When I started, I got less than $27K a year. After five years, I've just barely gotten over $30K a year. I supplement with $2K from summer school each year, a job that is not reliable as budget cuts threaten it every year. I also get $500 to coach Science Olympiad, which takes over 100 hours a year, so that's under $5 an hour for a guy with two degrees to coach that.

My wife and I together have a modest mortgage, two reasonable car payments, a reasonable credit card debt. After paying debts and bills, we rarely have over $400 to buy groceries, gas, and other necessities. Often this number is lower. Despite careful budgeting, we frequently have to borrow to get by. I currently have a payday loan. I don't want to sound snobbish here, but I didn't bust my @$$ in grad school so I could take payday loans to buy milk and peanut butter.

Further, I have considerable student loans, as does my wife. OUR LOANS HAVE BEEN IN DEFERMENT THE ENTIRE TIME WE HAVE BEEN TEACHING. We simply cannot even begin to dream of paying them. Meanwhile, they get bigger and bigger due to interest. I have no college savings for my children, no savings whatsoever, no investments, and barely any equity in my house.

My friend Dom, with one degree, works in computers. He makes over twice what I do. The guy who runs the local Sonic makes over three times what I do. Locals with nothing more than a high school degree commonly make more than I do.

Do I live in abject poverty? No. If someone asked me about teaching, would I tell them what "bad pay" really means? Yes, they deserve to know. Not very encouraging to someone who wants to join our profession.

I hope this clears the picture up somewhat. I can't speak nationally, but we a considered one of the better paying districts locally. I tremble for the poor teacher in Sedalia, who are paid far lower than we are. I do know that some East Coast districts pay considerably better, but are in parts of the nation where cost of living is much higher as well.

John "d20fool" McCarty

 

[d20fool]

Them's Fightin' Words

Not in my experience, and for good reason. Throwing more money at the problem is a case of diminishing returns. Taxes need to be better appropriated, not increased.

Money to pay a teacher is never wasted.

Think of the following scenario:

I'd rather not. What a ludicrous idea espoused by a guy who may have visited a school or two but has NO idea of what we do there. Socialization and character education, for starters, are not even listed but are arguably the most important thing we do. Because of public school, my two autistic students have a chance at living as productive members of society and my wife's at-risk program has turned around several students that were heading for jail. Neither type of student would be served under your nightmare of a scenario. Your politician clearly has no idea of what schools accomplish for society.

I'm a bit incredulous. People teach because they want to teach, not to earn money. Unless you are telling me they absolutely could not afford food and shelter, then they probably weren't the kinds of teachers I'd want teaching my children anyway. As I said before, this doesn't mean I disagree with increasing teacher salaries, but I have never heard of a public school teacher who actually could not afford to teach (I know I had several teachers that commuted over an hour each way to work because the school was in an area they could not afford). Were these private school teachers, perchance? I know I've heard of some of them making $15k/yr.

Most jobs are paid for with money. Some with prestige. A few with power. Teachers (policemen, fireman, etc.) are paid with the opportunity to make a difference.

I hate this "low pay means dedicated teachers" argument with a passion. It's a circular argument that takes advantage of teachers' best quality, dedication. Here's the argument you just stated:

Because teachers have low pay, they are dedicated
Dedicated teachers are desirable
Therefore, let us continue to pay teachers little so they will all be dedicated.

I want you listen up. I am a college educated professional with two degrees who works long and hard. I have a RIGHT to expect to be paid for my skills and my time. I do not do this for the money, no teacher does it for the money. If you don't want to be in a room teaching 25 ill-mannered children where you cannot even leave to go to the bathroom, no amount of money will keep you there.

What a ludicrous argument. Under this logic, all sorts of professions should be underpaid. Let's see how that works out. . .

[Doctors]
I'm a bit incredulous. People practice medicine because they want to practice medicine, not to earn money. Unless you are telling me they absolutely could not afford food and shelter, then they probably weren't the kinds of doctors I'd want performing surgery on my children anyway.

[Lawyers]
I'm a bit incredulous. People practice law because they want to practice law, not to earn money. Unless you are telling me they absolutely could not afford food and shelter, then they probably weren't the kinds of lawyers I'd want defending me when I am falsely accused anyway.

[Engineers]
I'm a bit incredulous. People become engineers because they want to build structures, not to earn money. Unless you are telling me they absolutely could not afford food and shelter, then they probably weren't the kinds of engineers I'd want building the things over my head anyway.

I am dedicated because I have a passion for what I am doing. You haven't heard of anybody who couldn't afford to teach?! Well, now you have. I have applied at the local college to become a principal. I love teaching, I love my job and I'm good at it. However, I cannot afford it anymore. Sadly, ironically, I can't afford the $30 application fee until next paycheck in three weeks either! That's how ridiculous my situation is.

So let's not question my dedication or imply that teachers are so mercenary that they have to be paid nothing to ensure their loyalty and devotion to other people's children. I have a right to a decent wage, my children have a right to be provided for. Might I suggest you not be quite so flippent when you discuss teacher's committment in the future.

John "Mad as Nine Layers of Hell" McCarty

 

[drothgery]

You'll forgive me if I don't lay out all my finances online, but here's a run down. I am a educated professional with a Master's degree and a BA in English from CU-Denver, an accredited and academically rigorous school. If I were in any other profession, I should expect a base pay of $50K for my first year out of school, earning possibly up to $80K (or far more) by the end of my career. This is what you will find for engineers and lawyers, you have a comparable amount of education and ceritification as we do.

You're making a very poor assumption, in asserting that engineers, lawyers, and computer scientists are "any other profession". They're not.

Engineering and computer science are the outlier fields, where a BS can lead to a relatively high-paying job directly related to what you studied just out of school (it doesn't always; my first job out of school -- with a BS in CS in-hand -- paid little more than yours did, though I've since moved on to positions that pay quite a bit better). It's very dubious as to whether getting a Master's in CS and some engineering fields is worth it; the two years of income and experience that you lose out on by getting an MS are almost certainly worth more. And law school is just about the only place where a humanities or social science undergrad degree and one graduate degree can lead directly to a high-paying job.

In any other profession, it takes exceptional skill, networking, and/or seniority (particularly in a unionized goverment job, the latter tends to outweigh everything else) to reach upper-middle class income levels in a short period of time.

 

[d20fool]

No really, it's less

You're making a very poor assumption, in asserting that engineers, lawyers, and computer scientists are "any other profession". They're not.

(snip)

In any other profession, it takes exceptional skill, networking, and/or seniority (particularly in a unionized goverment job, the latter tends to outweigh everything else) to reach upper-middle class income levels in a short period of time.

Oh please, "those guys are always paid more." I am a skilled professional. When does my hard work pay off?

My male counterparts get paid 60% better than I do
http://www.nea.org/edstats/losingground.html

I am paid less by hour and by week than my peers with similar skill sets. (I would add that, with the possible exception of clergy, I have more responsibility. These other guys get to go to the potty whenever they want.)
http://www.nea.org/neatoday/0410/teachercomp.html

John "d20fool" McCarty

 

[Umbran]

A.) Are you suggesting we pay parents to be good parents?

The original thesis was not, "The thing over which we have control that most impacts classroom performance is X." Nor was any mention of money made in the thesis. So I dunno where you get the idea that I'm suggesting pay for parents.

If there were a good way to do it, though, it might not be a bad idea. I doubt a good way exists, though.

We have NO control over the parents. We get the kids that we get. Yes, good parents are important, but not consistant.

Yes, but the point is that perhaps we ought to find some ways to improve the parenting. We don't have control, but maybe we can have influence.

Teacher quality is something we can control, and studies show that a single, quality teacher has more impact than anything else.

Of the things over which we currently have direct control, perhaps. Certainly, a good teacher is more valuable than a new book, or a improved building, sure. But among things that we don't control with school budgets? My own teaching experience leads me to severely doubt that teachers are still the big thing. Parents and the culture in which the student lives probably have larger impact.

As you yourself say, teachers have to work with what we are given as students. And if we are given students who have no interset in learning, we cannot do much. Inspiring teacher movies make nice cinema, but they don't reflect reality well at all.

I also wonder about the idea that we have real control over teacher quality. We certainly don't have a direct objective measure of it. The only real indirwect measure we have is student performance. And we've yet to come upon a good, solid, objective way to measure that, either. Without a measure, how can we claim to have reliable control?

The fact of the matter is that since students are those wonderfully complex critters called human beings, teaching is an art, not a science. Measures of art are by necessity subjective. And that makes controling the quality difficult, if not impossible.

B.) Most parents are more than willing to pay more taxes for education. They are our voting base in our local bond issues. It's folks without kids in school who don't like to pay teachers.

If things were that simple, there'd be no funding shortage.

In the end, willingness is irrelevant, because the parents alone don't have enough money to support the school system. Even if they were willing they are unable, because they're already paying the expenses of living and raising children. And many aren't even willing, because they don't value educaton highly.

The upcoming wholesale retirement of teachers has been happening for the last 5 years or so. I'm actually hoping for a teacher shortage. Maybe somebody will pay us then. We have a great retirement plan too, but I'm not quitting until they tell me to go home.

In Massachusetts, the retiring folks have already been in the system for 30 years, and they can retire at 80% of their highest salary. Work for 100%, or retire from a hard job at 80%? No brainer there. Many of them are going home of their own volition. Especially when they can then go get another job they enjoy to supplement their income.

In MA, the pay isn't as bad as in many places, but the retirement plan has been a disincentive to new teachers. It was set up by teachers who were already in the system for a decade, and they're making out like bandits. But studies show that new teachers could do better for themselves using very modest investment strategies rather than entering the MA teachers retirement plan.

I'm hoping the mass-retirement of teachers in MA will change that. I'm also hoping it means higher pay for teachers. In the shorter term, I'm just hoping it gets me a job

 

[francisca]

Yes, but the point is that perhaps we ought to find some ways to improve the parenting. We don't have control, but maybe we can have influence.

Anybody who figures out how to do that deserves a Nobel Prize.

 

[Frostmarrow]

What?!? Where on earth did you hear that?

I mean, this conversation is in context of the Western world, right? Poor Eastern European countries are really no more relevant to the conversation than poor African countries are. I know of no Western country which starts teaching kids to read at seven.

In Sweden you start learning how to read at 7. Sweden still has 99% literacy (according to the CIA). I don't think the age you begin learning how to read is all that important. We start learning English at 10.

 

[Umbran]

Anybody who figures out how to do that deserves a Nobel Prize.

I dunno. The issue isn't as difficult as all that. After all, don't Madison Avenue advertising executives already make big bucks for being demonstratably good at influencing public opinion? Don't politicos have spin doctors for the same ends? If you can change public opinion about a soda, or a pair of jeans, or a policial candidate, why should it be amazing to do so about something that really matters, like education?

 

[drothgery]

Oh please, "those guys are always paid more." I am a skilled professional. When does my hard work pay off?

It doesn't, at least not in cash. You chose to work in a highly unionized government job which demands a lot of employees and has a very flat org chart. If you didn't know the implications of this going in, you should have.

Because teaching is highly unionized AND a goverment job, it's very difficult for an outstanding teacher to be paid more than his or her peers (and it's very difficult to fire a poor one). Because teaching is a government job and society requires a lot of them, average teacher salaries are going to be the minimum level that produces a sufficient number of teachers; any other approach would bankrupt state governments fairly quickly (most states already spend a very large portion of their budget on education). Because there's a very flat org chart in teaching, you can't easily get promoted to a higher-paying position.