lhommedieu
Black Belt
Ender,
You said, *LOL...funny how people can read something and still get it wrong. I never said they overpaid and underworked. I have said they are not underpaid, and I gave proof of salaries paid here.
Funny, I never said that I was replying to any of your posts, but since youve decided to engage in ad hominum argument (here and elsewhere), Ill reply directly to your statements instead.
You said, (T)eaching is a low paid profession because almost anyone can do it and teachers are plentiful.
Not true on two counts. (1) Teaching is not a low paid profession because almost anyone can do it. If almost anyone can do it, then why do so many teachers quit? (Probably because they can make more money doing something thats easier to do.) (2) Teachers are not plentiful in many areas of the country, particularly in urban districts where salaries are lower than the suburbs. New York City, for example, faces chronic teacher shortages every year, due partly to low salaries - among many other reasons.
You said, "dude, keep up with the convo...I said my friend was making 62K after 5 years experience!!..and her hubby was vp at 8 years experience making over 100K. My point is that teachers are not necessarily as under paid as everyone thinks. yes , the STARTING salaries at pretty low, but they do that purposely do weed people out."
To be fair, salaries and certification requirements vary from state to state. After 14 years of teaching public school in New York city, I make only a little more than your friend is making. I make approximately 30% less than I would in a typical white-collar suburban neighborhood of say, Connecticut or northern New Jersey (where high property-based taxes support educational systems, that, you guessed it, are superior to the other 90% of those in the nation that have a lower property base). To be fair, I make more than I would in say, Florida or South Dakota (where a teacher with my experience is probably making far, far less), but Im also living in one of the highest cost-of-living cities in the nation. I was also required to get a master's degree (while I was working and raising a family) to maintain my certification and keep my job. I'd be curious to see what a stock broker, or even a school custodian (do either of these jobs require a B.A. or M.S.ed.?) is making after 14 years experience. (No offense to either profession - I just think that my salary is not commensurate my education.). I also teach in a working environment thats far different than my suburban compatriots: poorer infrastructure (supplies, resources, training), kids with greater needs (the majority are not native English speakers, or have parents that do not speak English), and greater demands on my energy and time (my class size, for example, has often been more than double than that of a typical wealthy suburban school district classroom).
Given the above, I respectfully disagree that I was underpaid as a starting teacher because anyone else could have done my job. (For that matter, if I am not underpaid now, in anyones opinion, then I am either paid just right, or overpaid. I submit that I am neither "paid just just right," nor nor "overpaid." With respect to whether "anyone could do [the job] then that means that you could do it, or the panhandler down the street, or the corporate executive up the block ? If so, then the logical implications must include either that (1) the educational requirements to gain and maintain teaching certification are excessively lax, or (2) teachings a cakewalk, requiring a modicum of skill, effort, and experience.
Re. your point of paying teachers a low starting salary to weed people out: Uh, no...
Because teacher salaries comprise the majority of any budget for education (which is, for the most part, based on property taxes), the point is to squeeze as much out productivity out of the budget as possible (hire more new teachers for less money), while making sure that the salary for experienced teachers will always stay within a certain range (keep higher salaries down, and have less experienced teachers who make more money). For example, I could go on to get my doctorate in education, but my salary would go up at such a small percentage, and so incrementally, that it would take me thirty years to pay off my student loans.
This argument is actually more logical: experienced teachers are paid lower salaries to encourage them to move on, thereby creating vacancies for lower-paid, less experienced teachers. This flock of new teachers will no longer have as many (if any) seasoned professionals to rely on for advice and mentoring; the flight of experienced teachers from the profession is without doubt one of the main reasons for the high turnover rate among teachers just entering the field. In my typical urban elementary school, for example, there are exactly three teachers with more than seven years experience out of approximately 100 teachers. I should note that nearly all of these teachers came into the system with M.A. or M.S. degrees, a (soon-to-be) entry level requirement that is not required in many professions wherein you can make far more money on an entry-level than you can in teaching.
Frankly, any assertion that private industry can do a better job increasing teacher salaries is based on merit is ludicrous. In a private school in East St. Louis, for example, from where is the money coming?
Finally: Convo? Conversation has only one o. Do you mean convolution]?
Best,
Steve Lamade
You said, *LOL...funny how people can read something and still get it wrong. I never said they overpaid and underworked. I have said they are not underpaid, and I gave proof of salaries paid here.
Funny, I never said that I was replying to any of your posts, but since youve decided to engage in ad hominum argument (here and elsewhere), Ill reply directly to your statements instead.
You said, (T)eaching is a low paid profession because almost anyone can do it and teachers are plentiful.
Not true on two counts. (1) Teaching is not a low paid profession because almost anyone can do it. If almost anyone can do it, then why do so many teachers quit? (Probably because they can make more money doing something thats easier to do.) (2) Teachers are not plentiful in many areas of the country, particularly in urban districts where salaries are lower than the suburbs. New York City, for example, faces chronic teacher shortages every year, due partly to low salaries - among many other reasons.
You said, "dude, keep up with the convo...I said my friend was making 62K after 5 years experience!!..and her hubby was vp at 8 years experience making over 100K. My point is that teachers are not necessarily as under paid as everyone thinks. yes , the STARTING salaries at pretty low, but they do that purposely do weed people out."
To be fair, salaries and certification requirements vary from state to state. After 14 years of teaching public school in New York city, I make only a little more than your friend is making. I make approximately 30% less than I would in a typical white-collar suburban neighborhood of say, Connecticut or northern New Jersey (where high property-based taxes support educational systems, that, you guessed it, are superior to the other 90% of those in the nation that have a lower property base). To be fair, I make more than I would in say, Florida or South Dakota (where a teacher with my experience is probably making far, far less), but Im also living in one of the highest cost-of-living cities in the nation. I was also required to get a master's degree (while I was working and raising a family) to maintain my certification and keep my job. I'd be curious to see what a stock broker, or even a school custodian (do either of these jobs require a B.A. or M.S.ed.?) is making after 14 years experience. (No offense to either profession - I just think that my salary is not commensurate my education.). I also teach in a working environment thats far different than my suburban compatriots: poorer infrastructure (supplies, resources, training), kids with greater needs (the majority are not native English speakers, or have parents that do not speak English), and greater demands on my energy and time (my class size, for example, has often been more than double than that of a typical wealthy suburban school district classroom).
Given the above, I respectfully disagree that I was underpaid as a starting teacher because anyone else could have done my job. (For that matter, if I am not underpaid now, in anyones opinion, then I am either paid just right, or overpaid. I submit that I am neither "paid just just right," nor nor "overpaid." With respect to whether "anyone could do [the job] then that means that you could do it, or the panhandler down the street, or the corporate executive up the block ? If so, then the logical implications must include either that (1) the educational requirements to gain and maintain teaching certification are excessively lax, or (2) teachings a cakewalk, requiring a modicum of skill, effort, and experience.
Re. your point of paying teachers a low starting salary to weed people out: Uh, no...
Because teacher salaries comprise the majority of any budget for education (which is, for the most part, based on property taxes), the point is to squeeze as much out productivity out of the budget as possible (hire more new teachers for less money), while making sure that the salary for experienced teachers will always stay within a certain range (keep higher salaries down, and have less experienced teachers who make more money). For example, I could go on to get my doctorate in education, but my salary would go up at such a small percentage, and so incrementally, that it would take me thirty years to pay off my student loans.
This argument is actually more logical: experienced teachers are paid lower salaries to encourage them to move on, thereby creating vacancies for lower-paid, less experienced teachers. This flock of new teachers will no longer have as many (if any) seasoned professionals to rely on for advice and mentoring; the flight of experienced teachers from the profession is without doubt one of the main reasons for the high turnover rate among teachers just entering the field. In my typical urban elementary school, for example, there are exactly three teachers with more than seven years experience out of approximately 100 teachers. I should note that nearly all of these teachers came into the system with M.A. or M.S. degrees, a (soon-to-be) entry level requirement that is not required in many professions wherein you can make far more money on an entry-level than you can in teaching.
Frankly, any assertion that private industry can do a better job increasing teacher salaries is based on merit is ludicrous. In a private school in East St. Louis, for example, from where is the money coming?
Finally: Convo? Conversation has only one o. Do you mean convolution]?
Best,
Steve Lamade
opcorn:
