627 replies to this topic

[CaptainSpaulding71]

so let's all reply with how much we think teachers should be paid. Fill in the pay scales:

starting salary: $xxxxx
after 5 years $xxxxx
after 10 years $xxxxx
lifetime salary cap $xxxxx

[gingerkid]

Why should it depend on number of years? I don't get a raise each time I hit another year in my job.

The value is teacher-dependent. Some of them I'd pay more than others. Why can't we do it based on how good they are. At my job, they rank us in order of performance and pay accordingly. Seems like that's a better method than basing raises on how long I've kept a seat warm.

[CaptainSpaulding71]

i agree that teaching should award raises based on merit.

the exercise i proposed was supposed to indicate what one could expect ball-park to earn after doing 'ok' in your job. i'm sure other professions have similar progressions. for example, an engineer might make only low 40k first year out but after few years, this gets up to 50-60k and probably tops out in 100k as an individual contributor (not manager and not CTO or VP).

[TM70]

R

[banana]

Banana, you and my husband must for work the same company.

I doubt it, we just happen to live in the real world.

Just looking at some of the above comments ie. how much should a teacher make at 5yrs, 10yrs, etc.

That seniority time based system died in the private sector some 20yrs ago. Today it's pay for performance. There are folks on my team that haven't seen a raise in 7-8yrs.

It's not about how long you're around, it's about the results you get for the company, and even then, only last quarter's results are what counts. Nobody cares that you drove $100M in new revenue last year. They only care about what have you done this past quarter.

There's such a great disconnect between public sector employees that are somewhat sheltered from the realities of the workforce today that they won't understand unless they join the private sector.

Of course, deep down they know that reality, so they won't even try. It's better just to stay put and complain about your pay.

This is a very, very old argument, and has been going on for decades, and will continue to go on for decades. You want private sector pay, join the private sector and take the good with the bad.

What you really want is private sector pay, for public sector work, with public sector benefits.

Who the heck doesn't want that in the public or private sector?

Unions like the Teachers Union is the worst thing to happen in our education system. We can take a lesson from Belgium where parents choose the schools based on the school's performance ensuring that every school and every teacher is scrambling to improve performance and keep their jobs, and bad schools that don't make the cut are shut down and those teachers lose their jobs. Those students are absorbed by the better schools and the money flows to those schools.

I saw a teacher in an interview on 20/20 with John Stossel when asked how much money is enough, her response was - there's no limit - no amount is enough.

Sadly, these people are the educators of today's children. Totally disconnected with reality, as if money grew on trees.

Teachers should be like any other worker in America. Not a nickel more until they can commit to specific educational improvements in their own classes, and if they miss those targets, they should be let go like the rest of us.

[mylo]

i agree that teaching should award raises based on merit.

the exercise i proposed was supposed to indicate what one could expect ball-park to earn after doing 'ok' in your job. i'm sure other professions have similar progressions. for example, an engineer might make only low 40k first year out but after few years, this gets up to 50-60k and probably tops out in 100k as an individual contributor (not manager and not CTO or VP).

In that case, we should scale the progression of grades, too. First grade substitutes getting X, where Harvard Professor makes Y.

In software engineering, that's from QA Intern to NSA Cryptographer.

Hopefully that should cover more than just 'years' in terms of duration, and more accurately account for experience and talent development.

In which case, I would say the starting range is minimum wage, to ending wage of, hmm.. $300k (not including "perks") for a top tier professor?

[tessieca]

Allow me a retort from both ends of the spectrum, not just one, and then decide. Oh yeah, read the whole thing, not just part of it.
http://money.cnn.com...chers/index.htm

That article states: "Vedder's research tells a different story. Using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, he found that on an hourly basis, teachers actually earn more than accountants, computer programmers, and even mechanical engineers.

Moreover, teachers' contracts often contain economic incentives not measured by straightforward salary surveys."

"The average public-school teacher receives fringe benefits equaling 26 percent of his or her salary, according to Vedder, versus about 17 percent in the private sector."

The Coyote Blog you cited says, and goes on to present evidence of relatively high teacher pay:

"For example, per the NEA web site, teachers made a bit over $56,000 on average in California in 2004. Lisa Snell, in this month's Reason, estimates that benefits add nearly $16,000 to this compensation package, for a total of about $72,000 per year for California teachers. Normalize this for the fact they work 9 months (or less) a year, and you get them making an equivalent of $100,000 a year. "

[TM70]

V

[tessieca]

Just one quick little response before I head home for the weekend, I was simply quoting from two of the three articles. I only quoted from those two because YOU posted them, yet they were entirely contrary to your position, so it was interesting to note. The other one supports you.

[TM70]

W

[forumreader]

I just want both sides to negotiate FAIRLY. You know as well as I do that BOTH sides play games and if the wind keeps blowing the way that it does, and I hope it doesn't, that both sides will be affected, but the kids will lose...it's as simple as that. Besides, I don't want to have to wear that lime green shirt anymore...

It seems that the kids already are losing. That is, they are losing instructional time.

I am very disappointed to hear my student report that three of his teachers regularly speak of their salaries, the "unfair" District decisions, and the teachers' union strategies DURING class time. Do you honestly believe that involving our children in your employment grievances is negotiating "FAIRLY?"

Are you tired of lime green shirts? Please, leave them at home!!

[TM70]

G

[folsom fan]

"Banana" for president, you the man (or woman). Could never be elected though because of people who think like TM70 and the rest of the "public servants".

[Robert Giacometti]

TM70, I respect your determination and I admire those who are passionate about their beliefs or causes. I have one child who had has gone through FCUSD and another about halfway through and all in all I've been very pleased with the teachers I have met within FCUSD.

I can only recall one issue regarding a teacher where my child was NOT treated fairly and that wasn't regarding academics. I felt the Board & Superintendent should have involved themselves and corrected a wrong, but sensed their hands were somewhat tied until the end of the year. Fortunately, that issue will never happen again within FCUSD with that person.

I am very supportive of the FCUSD teachers receiving a fair, competitive salary & benefit program. I guess the question is really what is fair & competitive?

If I understand correctly, what you are saying the Union wants compared to what the District is offering the difference is only about 1.6 % plus another $100.00 towards the medical insurance. Is this what the disagreement is about?

Since its not my money either way...its easier for me NOT to allow my emotions to affect my thought process. It seems logical to me that the Board & Superintendent want happy employees and a good working relationship with the teachers. I don't believe the Superintendent or the Board gets a bonus over any funds they squeeze out of the teachers...like the private sector CEO might get by being more profitable. What could possibly be their motive for NOT paying you more if they have funds available?

I also gotta believe they too want a competitive salary & benefit package for teachers so they too can attract the best possible candidates. It seems logical to me that the Superintendent wants the best possible teachers they can get because it makes them look better and makes their job easier. Logically I can't see any reason why they wouldn't want to pay you everything they can....why would they want to go through this issue if they didn't have too?

I hope the issue gets resolved quickly with a solution that allows everyone to move forward!

[TM70]

H