Go Red for Ed(ucation)!

[ATOMonkey]

Hmmm....how about 7 years without a pay raise???

Don

to my knowledge, teachers are the only profession that has a state law requiring raises so long as certain standards are met. I can point you to the law if you need it.

 

[Jludo]

.5% raise every year

 

[Vigilant]

.5% raise every year

Bigger than mine was.

 

[Jludo]

Bigger than mine was.

Might look for a new line if you're losing pace to inflation.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Are teachers the only ones that don't research typical compensation packages and work requirements when choosing a career path? Are these sprung on them as a surprise, only once they've accepted the job? I ask, because when I was a young man, trying to decide which on a career path, I certainly looked into those things. I'm pretty sure plenty of other people do too but apparently teachers are the only ones caught unawares.

 

[Jludo]

Are teachers the only ones that don't research typical compensation packages and work requirements when choosing a career path? Are these sprung on them as a surprise, only once they've accepted the job? I ask, because when I was a young man, trying to decide which on a career path, I certainly looked into those things. I'm pretty sure plenty of other people do too but apparently teachers are the only ones caught unawares.

I'm confused to your point, we dont have enough teachers precisely because they realize they won't make anything. Are you saying that because we have anyone willing to teach, the compensation must be fair?

We could pay taco bell wages and thered still be teachers who care enough to actually teach.

I dont understand this resistance to paying teachers more. I understand the not wanting to politicize it but if both dems and repubs agreed on fair teacher wages it wouldn't be a wedge issue.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Are teachers the only ones that don't research typical compensation packages and work requirements when choosing a career path? Are these sprung on them as a surprise, only once they've accepted the job? I ask, because when I was a young man, trying to decide which on a career path, I certainly looked into those things. I'm pretty sure plenty of other people do too but apparently teachers are the only ones caught unawares.

I truly believe most teachers get into the profession for altruistic reasons (however misguided some of their methods may be once they get into those positions). I don't think any of them go into it for the money, unless they ultimately plan to get into administrative roles.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I'm confused to your point, we dont have enough teachers precisely because they realize they won't make anything. Are you saying that because we have anyone willing to teach, the compensation must be fair?

We could pay taco bell wages and thered still be teachers who care enough to actually teach.

I dont understand this resistance to paying teachers more. I understand the not wanting to politicize it but if both dems and repubs agreed on fair teacher wages it wouldn't be a wedge issue.

We already spend half of our state budget on education. How much more shall we tax people? How much more is enough?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I truly believe most teachers get into the profession for altruistic reasons (however misguided some of their methods may be once they get into those positions). I don't think any of them go into it for the money, unless they ultimately plan to get into administrative roles.

With decisions come consequences...no matter how ill-informed or altruistic they were based.

 

[Alamo]

When you say you want to raise teachers' pay, especially substantially, then what you're really saying is you want different teachers. The job will become attractive to more qualified folks who would not have considered it previously, and the current teachers will find themselves in competition with the newbies. Same for cops, military, engineers, whatever. Union contracts or civil service rules can interfere with this for awhile, but eventually it will come to pass.

Also:

Also, her raise is dependent on how well the kids in the district (or school - I forget) do on standardized tests. She is rewarded or punished for other people's actions.

I really can't think of a job where this is not ultimately true. The very nature of a job or profession is to provide a service or product that other people find useful, and the teacher's product is supposed to be better educated kids. Some times it takes longer for the feedback to happen in some jobs than others. But it's not enough to "do your best," others have to recognize your "best" and judge it to be useful or they eventually quit paying.

For example HoughMade's job success and resultant pay ultimately ride on how well he influences the actions (decisions) of other people, like judges, prosecutors, opposing counsel, and ultimately jurors. I'll bet if HM gets rompered in too many cases his firm will have a serious discussion with him about pay and continued employment. If he is a solo lawyer like Freeman, then he gets to have the discussion with himself, and maybe decides to change careers to something that might involve minutiae about small-block Chevy engines, like Jeopardy contestant...

Heck, one of the most frequent complaints about government civil service jobs -- by those that don't have them anyway -- is that the rewards of pay and raises are often divorced from the employees actual production or decisions. That's supposed to be a bad thing. If you pay teachers (plumbers, cops, lawyers, whatever) and things don't improve or at least remain the same, why on earth would you pour more money into that part of the solution. It may not entirely be the teacher's fault -- maybe the fact that a large percentage of kids have dunderheads for parents is a bigger factor than teacher skill -- but is that is true, why would I put more money into a part of the system that is being overwhelmed by another part? At least as long as there are people willing to show up for the current pay?

 

[Jludo]

We already spend half of our state budget on education. How much more shall we tax people? How much more is enough?

Why raise taxes? Cut other things, we have too many firefighters, dont need a new swine barn at the state fairgrounds etc. Feel free to go through the budget and cut anything less important than teachers.

Don't get me wrong, the local handling of funds are a mess. 4th graders dont need new iPads every other year, that right there would cover a big chunk.

 

[Jludo]

With decisions come consequences...no matter how ill-informed or altruistic they were based.

What we are saying is a consequence of going into public teaching shouldn't be low wages.

 

[jamil]

I'm confused to your point, we dont have enough teachers precisely because they realize they won't make anything. Are you saying that because we have anyone willing to teach, the compensation must be fair?

We could pay taco bell wages and thered still be teachers who care enough to actually teach.

I don't understand this resistance to paying teachers more. I understand the not wanting to politicize it but if both dems and repubs agreed on fair teacher wages it wouldn't be a wedge issue.

What you've said so far in this thread doesn't really address the problem. It's not just a simple disagreement. You can't pay teachers more if there isn't more money in the budget to pay them. Money that school corporations get is the money they bring in from taxes. They put property tax increases on referendums, and people vote them down just about every time because people are taxed enough already. So now what? Your referendum failed, and your school system has no more money to meet the guaranteed increase you wanted. How do you propose to meet that? This is a zero sum game. You pay teachers more, then that's less money to spend elsewhere. Maybe they cut the number of teachers employed so that the fewer teachers left make more money. Or, maybe they have to cut costs elsewhere. Close schools. Combine student population. Sound familiar?

People don't resist paying teachers more because they don't want them to make more money. Hell, I'd like to see teachers make more. It's ridiculous that a person with any kind of master's degree can't break much over 50K/year. It's not that I don't agree with dems that teachers should be paid more. It's that I don't agree with increasing my property taxes. I pay a **** ton already.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Why raise taxes? Cut other things, we have too many firefighters, dont need a new swine barn at the state fairgrounds etc. Feel free to go through the budget and cut anything less important than teachers.

Don't get me wrong, the local handling of funds are a mess. 4th graders dont need new iPads every other year, that right there would cover a big chunk.

I saw a chart somewhere some time back, it was most probably based on national statistics. But, if I can come close to remembering the magnitude of the numbers, since something like 1970, student population has risen 10%. Teacher population has risen 50%. Non-teacher population has risen over 100%. There's plenty of money in the school systems. In many communities, they are the largest employer. No one will want to poke that bear even though its got plenty of fat on it. We are being manipulated by "it's for the children" and this whole Red for Ed thing is exploiting it to the hilt.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

What we are saying is a consequence of going into public teaching shouldn't be low wages.

Why does free markets, allowing people to bear the cost of their own decisions, cease when it comes to teachers and education?

It seems to many conservatives and libertarians, this is an area that is exempt from the ideals they hold out for every other walk of life. SMH...

 

[jamil]

Why raise taxes? Cut other things, we have too many firefighters, dont need a new swine barn at the state fairgrounds etc. Feel free to go through the budget and cut anything less important than teachers.

Don't get me wrong, the local handling of funds are a mess. 4th graders dont need new iPads every other year, that right there would cover a big chunk.

I don't get to set the priorities. I just get to vote yes or no on the referendum to raise my taxes. And I get to vote for people I don't know who run for school board. And there are a number of things other than teacher pay which might make me vote one way or the other on board members.

 

[Jludo]

Why does free markets, allowing people to bear the cost of their own decisions, cease when it comes to teachers and education?

It seems to many conservatives and libertarians, this is an area that is exempt from the ideals they hold out for every other walk of life. SMH...

Yes public education is one of the socialist ideals this small l libertarian is for.
Are we going to debate the merits of a public education system? I like the idea that everyone, no matter how poor gets at lease some education.

 

[jamil]

What we are saying is a consequence of going into public teaching shouldn't be low wages.

It is what it is. Should or shouldn't doesn't really matter, because there are lots of consequences to consider. Again, I'm not arguing against paying teachers more. I think the job they do is more valuable than the pay they receive. But it is the way it is because it's just how public funding works. Private schools don't pay a lot better, but I think that's because the overall going rate for teachers is artificially lowered by the reality of public funding and where that money comes from.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

What you've said so far in this thread doesn't really address the problem. It's not just a simple disagreement. You can't pay teachers more if there isn't more money in the budget to pay them. Money that school corporations get is the money they bring in from taxes. They put property tax increases on referendums, and people vote them down just about every time because people are taxed enough already. So now what? Your referendum failed, and your school system has no more money to meet the guaranteed increase you wanted. How do you propose to meet that? This is a zero sum game. You pay teachers more, then that's less money to spend elsewhere. Maybe they cut the number of teachers employed so that the fewer teachers left make more money. Or, maybe they have to cut costs elsewhere. Close schools. Combine student population. Sound familiar?

People don't resist paying teachers more because they don't want them to make more money. Hell, I'd like to see teachers make more. It's ridiculous that a person with any kind of master's degree can't break much over 50K/year. It's not that I don't agree with dems that teachers should be paid more. It's that I don't agree with increasing my property taxes. I pay a **** ton already.

Where did this paradigm originate that teachers were under paid? Teaching is a good and service just like engineers, doctors, plumbers, and police officers. If the field isn't paying enough for you, choose another. But it seems like we want educators exempted from economic reality. For some reason, we've adopted this idea that they're worth the same pay as doctors or even more (in some peoples' eyes). If they were worth it, the market would see to it they were paid accordingly. And if the public education system is unable to meet the expectations, maybe it's indicative that we should untether education from taxes and let the market figure it out.

 

[jamil]

Yes public education is one of the socialist ideals this small l libertarian is for.
Are we going to debate the merits of a public education system? I like the idea that everyone, no matter how poor gets at lease some education.

Education is a societal good. You won't hear me saying "societal good" in a positive way for many things, but for the good of society, education is a benefit. But. Funding public stuff is hard. That extra barn at the state fairgrounds is to some people, more valuable than some other things. But it's not even that. That money comes from a different source. Maybe we could talk about funding schools in other ways than how we fund them now. But I certainly don't want to push the administrative power up the chain so far as the state or federal level. Its too centralized as it is.