sourceOriginally Posted by Loki
source
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Assuming a teacher teaches at a passable level, what incentive do they have to improve? Higher salary? Possibility of the revocation of tenure?
Hope is the denial of reality
the children.
I can't tell if your use of absolute terms shows how disconnected you are from the mindset of a teacher, or if you're spouting off random one liners without thinking using your usual weasel words.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Right. Teachers are all selfless and more concerned with the well-being of their students than with their own well-being. Angels indeed.
Hope is the denial of reality
A tad over the top, now combine that absolute statement with your previous one and you might start understanding how real life works.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
"Won't somebody think about the children" is not an incentive.
Hope is the denial of reality
Believing you're helping to better the world is.
This loops right back to you're inability to understand something/one that doesn't fit your version of reality.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
In that case, maybe we can just pay teachers the minimum wage. As long as they're in the profession to better the world, why should they complain?
Hope is the denial of reality
survival? Is that really the best argument you have that teachers have no incentive to be good? because they get paid?
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
I'm talking about education reform at the Teacher level (K-12) as one element of comprehensive changes. Since it's a multi-factoral issue, there's more to it than 'blaming' teacher unions and/or limiting collective bargaining....and assuming that's the most important place to start. I've already said it would be a good idea to reform our university degrees in Elementary Education, and change requirements for teaching positions to allow professionals with teaching certificates, etc. Plus, I've said before that we need to reform our funding process to de-couple public education from property/real estate values, since that led to underfunded and economically segregated schools, and failed schools.
I snipped your salary chart because it only focused on teacher pay in 2010 (the title said it all -- "At a Glance") and didn't make long-term comparisons to student outcomes, or other socio-economic factors that have significant impact on education. US students have fallen behind in STEM categories, and rank something like 27th overall globally.
*PS, Finland made reforms the last decade or two, and made Education a national priority. Flixy already pointed out -- their teachers are cream-of-the-crop, and highly respected. If you adjust for COL differences, and services they don't have to "buy" OOP (like healthcare, child care, elder care, etc.), their teachers are paid ~$90-100K/year in USD equivalents.*Maybe you can explain that particular chain of logic to me. We spend more than everyone else because we default to privatization?
Ah, so a lack of Universal Healthcare is what explains our educational woes?
And just for the record, the average salary for a teacher in Finland is ~$29,000. Again, their performance is not a function of how well they are compensating their teachers.
The main point is that we spend more than other nations, but don't get better results. Oh, we have the money, but do a crappy job of allocating and maximizing public education dollars -- because that's considered wealth redistribution or SSSocialism in certain political circles -- similar to attitudes about public healthcare.
No one's denying that, Loki. But don't forget why "school teachers" needed union representation in the first place. Historical context matters.
Last edited by GGT; 03-03-2014 at 04:38 AM. Reason: *
And you believe this is because of how poorly teachers are paid in this country? Let's see your evidence.
I'd love to see a source for that, because as with so many of our discussions, saying so does not make it so. Finland has a higher CoL, (roughly 30% higher) and a lower average salary, (roughly 18-20% lower) than the United States. You are right to say that educators are respected, you are wrong to say that their educational successes are a result of their high pay.*PS, Finland made reforms the last decade or two, and made Education a national priority. Flixy already pointed out -- their teachers are cream-of-the-crop, and highly respected. If you adjust for COL differences, and services they don't have to "buy" OOP (like healthcare, child care, elder care, etc.), their teachers are paid ~$90-100K/year in USD equivalents.*
You aren't making sense. We have the money because we are already redistributing the wealth. Maximizing public education dollars, whatever that means, is not synonymous with "SSSocialism." You are trying to mesh disparate concepts together in order to fit your narrative, and becoming a broken record in the process.The main point is that we spend more than other nations, but don't get better results. Oh, we have the money, but do a crappy job of allocating and maximizing public education dollars -- because that's considered wealth redistribution or SSSocialism in certain political circles -- similar to attitudes about public healthcare.
The "evidence" comes from comparing today's US education to our own history....while also comparing ourselves to other nations. Bottom line -- we are falling, failing. It's not so much that US K-12 teachers are paid 'poorly', but that our public systems don't coordinate well with, or reflect, national priorities.
I've never said Education is a black-and-white issue.I'd love to see a source for that, because as with so many of our discussions, saying so does not make it so. Finland has a higher CoL, (roughly 30% higher) and a lower average salary, (roughly 18-20% lower) than the United States. You are right to say that educators are respected, you are wrong to say that their educational successes are a result of their high pay.
I don't believe the US should "attract" professional teachers like we "attract" professional soldiers--by offering great "benefits"...that end up on the budget-cutting block.
So previously we were paying higher salaries to our teachers than we are now? I'd love to see a source for that one too.
That's interesting, because what you have actually been saying are things like this:I've never said Education is a black-and-white issue.
I don't believe the US should "attract" professional teachers like we "attract" professional soldiers--by offering great "benefits"...that end up on the budget-cutting block.
We can't keep paying $50,000 salaries to attract or retain the best educators, or think that gets kids a world-class education.We already know that teachers have been paying more toward their healthcare/retirement pensions, without concurrent increases in salary to make up the difference. And that teachers carry more educational debt themselves than previous decades. IF he wants to remove unions from wage negotiations, and follow Republican proposals to de-couple benefits from teachers' payment packages -- then tax payers and legislators should realize that will mean paying teachers more, not less.Or at least you were saying that until evidence was presented showing that United States has some of the highest paid teachers in the world while returning only middling scores. Now you've somehow decided that what you've really been saying all along is that it's because Education isn't a national priority? Really? That the problems in education are because of our healthcare system? How do you figure that?More importantly, IF we want to have a top notch public education system, with high quality educators, and students prepared for the 21st century....then our budgets, and teacher salaries, should reflect those priorities.
In past decades, teachers were paid salaries that afforded a middle-class lifestyle. $50,000/year could buy a home, pay off student debt, have 2.5 kids, the whole nine yards. Many teachers who retired in the late 80's early 90's topped out at $75,000/year, even after teaching 35-40 years. (Just ask some retired teachers in Indiana)
As health costs escalated out of control, it was politically more 'expedient' to give them more benefits in lieu of higher wages. Those were the deals/negotiations made b/w union reps, legislators, tax payers. The public balked when they couldn't get the same employer-subsidized benefits as teachers (or other public workers), and realized the legacy costs didn't account for longer life spans or 20 year retirements.
Sigh. I replied to Rand why that $50K is NOT an "adequate" salary, let alone a professional educator salary, in the 21st century. Locale and state makes a big difference, and national averages don't suss out COL or what $50K actually buys in today's economy. In most urban cities or suburban-metro areas....$50K is only "adequate" if there are two income-earners, or household income closer to $100,000. Wages are relative to costs, especially exorbitant health insurance costs.Or at least you were saying that until evidence was presented showing that United States has some of the highest paid teachers in the world while returning only middling scores. Now you've somehow decided that what you've really been saying all along is that it's because Education isn't a national priority? Really? That the problems in education are because of our healthcare system? How do you figure that?
Unions and public employees can't be faulted for our political problems, or our woefully inadequate public systems. They just exposed the structural dysfunctions, and our conflicted attitudes toward public health/education, and teh taxes. We have the same schizoid attitude toward Defense spending, enlisted military wages, and Veteran benefits.
So, no -- I don't think our national priorities are reflected in our budgets. We like to say we have The Best XYZ in the World, but we don't pay accordingly.
And in past decades, did we have a good education system?
Hope is the denial of reality
I'd say so, yes. In fact, the US used to be a global leader in public Education.
You sound like an 80-year-old who thinks that everything about the past was great and everything about the present is awful. Newsflash: the US primary/secondary education system has always sucked. The only reason it did ok, comparatively speaking, is that Western Europe was in ruins and Asia was completely undeveloped.
Hope is the denial of reality
Nope. I'm just "old enough" to have a connection with the post-WWII economic boom, the Viet Nam era stagnation, the Cold War era transitions...and everything in between. The US educational system has NOT "always sucked". It produced the scientists and engineers that put Man on the Moon, ffs. (The NASA program had many non-US educated personnel, but its achievements couldn't have been accomplished without US-educated personnel.)
That might be a compelling argument. Unfortunately, none of it is true*. Teachers salaries have grown over the last 50 years. And while it's true that the average educators pay was highest in the 2009 school year, the delta between the average 2012 and 2009 salaries was just about 2% - hardly a significant difference. Regardless, the 21st century has seen the highest paid teachers in our countries history, which is quite the opposite of what you've been claiming.In past decades, teachers were paid salaries that afforded a middle-class lifestyle. $50,000/year could buy a home, pay off student debt, have 2.5 kids, the whole nine yards. Many teachers who retired in the late 80's early 90's topped out at $75,000/year, even after teaching 35-40 years. (Just ask some retired teachers in Indiana
As health costs escalated out of control, it was politically more 'expedient' to give them more benefits in lieu of higher wages. Those were the deals/negotiations made b/w union reps, legislators, tax payers. The public balked when they couldn't get the same employer-subsidized benefits as teachers (or other public workers), and realized the legacy costs didn't account for longer life spans or 20 year retirements.
*See columns 7,8, and 9.
They are getting paid more in the 21st century than they ever have before. Yet again, saying something does not make it true.Sigh. I replied to Rand why that $50K is NOT an "adequate" salary, let alone a professional educator salary, in the 21st century. Locale and state makes a big difference, and national averages don't suss out COL or what $50K actually buys in today's economy. In most urban cities or suburban-metro areas....$50K is only "adequate" if there are two income-earners, or household income closer to $100,000. Wages are relative to costs, especially exorbitant health insurance costs.
Unions and public employees can't be faulted for our political problems, or our woefully inadequate public systems. They just exposed the structural dysfunctions, and our conflicted attitudes toward public health/education, and teh taxes. We have the same schizoid attitude toward Defense spending, enlisted military wages, and Veteran benefits.
So, no -- I don't think our national priorities are reflected in our budgets. We like to say we have The Best XYZ in the World, but we don't pay accordingly.
Why you keep coming back to our education problems being a function of low wages is beyond me. It hasn't been true in the past, it isn't true globally, and it's not true now.
Last edited by Enoch the Red; 03-05-2014 at 03:57 AM.
Nice chart. It shows teacher salaries have grown....but it doesn't make comparisons with what those salaries actually buy. The escalating costs of things like housing, energy, transportation, medical care, and college debt aren't included for context.
See, this is what galls me -- the time we spend arguing about teacher pay, as if freezing wages/salaries/benefits at Ozzie and Harriet, or Mayberry levels, will magically produce better teachers, and better students. There's a fundamental disconnect between "you get what you pay for" in the private sector, and what tax dollars provide in the public sector. In essence, it's a political problem. Go USA #1?
Again, that's not true. Columns 7, 8, and 9 show exactly that.Nice chart. It shows teacher salaries have grown....but it doesn't make comparisons with what those salaries actually buy. The escalating costs of things like housing, energy, transportation, medical care, and college debt aren't included for context.
See, this is what galls me -- the time we spend arguing about teacher pay, as if freezing wages/salaries/benefits at Ozzie and Harriet, or Mayberry levels, will magically produce better teachers, and better students. There's a fundamental disconnect between "you get what you pay for" in the private sector, and what tax dollars provide in the public sector. In essence, it's a political problem. Go USA #1
So, again I ask you, what factual evidence do you have for your claims that wages have fallen and that those falling wages are responsible for the problems with education in our country?2 Constant dollars based on the Consumer Price Index, prepared by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, adjusted to a school-year basis.
Teacher wages have fallen relative to COL. I've never said that's the main reason we've fallen in educational rankings, but I also don't hold teachers, or their unions, responsible for the failures in our educational system.
It's like you are physically incapable of admitting when you are wrong.
Let's see some data.
I've never said that's the main reason we've fallen in educational rankings...By never do you actually mean the last 24 hours?We can't keep paying $50,000 salaries to attract or retain the best educators, or think that gets kids a world-class education.
...
More importantly, IF we want to have a top notch public education system, with high quality educators, and students prepared for the 21st century....then our budgets, and teacher salaries, should reflect those priorities...
Even if we accepted that what you are saying is currently what you believe, you are still wanting to give them larger raises. You don't see a problem with that?...but I also don't hold teachers, or their unions, responsible for the failures in our educational system.
Last edited by Enoch the Red; 03-05-2014 at 06:15 AM.
What kind of data do you want? Data showing university graduates carry historic levels of educational debt? Teachers with Masters or PhD requirements and costs that exceed their lifetime salary re-imbursements?
At the moment? I'd settle for something from you that is relevant, honest, and in good faith. I don't have high expectations.
I'll ignore your underhanded personal dig, and refer to your own state policies. Could Indiana have created important university level studies....without an educated K-12 student populace....subsidized by state or federal tax dollars?
And I would like to refer you to stipulation one of my underhanded dig. Relevance, or rather the lack of it. Do you have any pertinent data what-so-ever from a reliable source that might support any of your claims I have contested?
Fair enough, but if it's about attracting teachers with wages, relative pay is the thing that matters. Unless you want to attract foreign teachers, of course. Then again, I don't think raising wages will solve anything (at least, not by itself anyway), so it's a bit of a moot point anyway.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/05/ny...battle.html?hp And this is why we have a shitty education system in this country. Someone opens up schools that achieve far better results than the public school equivalents, and what do lefties and unions do? Try to close the schools.
Hope is the denial of reality
They aren't closing them, from that article - just canceled some plans. What struck me from the article (among a lot of weird things), is that they claim charter schools simply use public school's classrooms without paying rent or anything, that does seem somewhat weird for a privately run school. Then again, I'm not entirely clear what exactly charter schools are and what the pros and cons are, so if anyone feels like explaining that to me..?
Also, the article mentions they leave the special needs and nonnative students to the public schools, it's not exactly hard to outperform other schools if you only take the best students
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote