Teacher starting salary should be one third of what members of Congress are paid.
TimmyMWD said 02/29, 03:58 PM
Currently, members of congress make $143,100 (according to the Library of Congress). In contrast, the average income (Note: that's not starting, in some places starting is $28,000) of teachers in this nation is a little over $46,000. Despite the fact that teaching is one of the most respected professions (according to a recent CNN article), school districts have difficulty generating the revenue necessary to increase teacher salaries. Education has one of the highest turnovers of any profession, with most teachers not likely to make it past their third year. Not only is this disadvantageous to the teachers, it is more damning to the students' education. Often times, the new teachers are cycled into the schools "no one wants to go to" (read: inner city schools), making an already difficult situation for students in those schools even worse.
This cycle needs to stop. Teachers need a proper salary to help compensate for the hardships they face. Starting salaries must be set by federal mandate and subsidies at $47,000; or one third of what members of Congress make.
Swerv said 02/29, 06:18 PM
Im not going to argue that teachers need to get paid more, I am very pleased with the service that teachers do for country. We cannot however set a standard salary of 47'000 dollars for teachers in public schools that would bankrupt half the schools in this country. The problem isn't with the schools its with the Department of Education and the Tax System. My first arguement is that funding for public schools mostly comes from the state so if we are going to set a standard for the pay of teachers in public schools it would have to go along with the price of living in the state. Someone in New York City isn't going to survive off of 47'000 a year. They correct way would be to get rid of the Public School system and privatize it. This would bring much more money through private funds making the school safer and more prosperous. The average wage for a teacher in a private school is 60'000 dollars after 3 years. Which is 13'000 more then you proposed Salary.
TimmyMWD said 02/29, 09:38 PM
I'm not talking about putting the funding burden on local or state governments, they're already strapped for cash and can't deficit spend. The federal government needs to pick up the tab for this one. If they're willing to spend $300 million sending kids AWAY from public schools to private ones, there's no way you can't justify spending to help keep teachers in the system.
The current average salary for teachers is in the mid 40,000s. Teachers move up in income based on years of experience and further education. If the federal government provides the majority base $ for the starting salary, local school districts can still shell the cash for their salary increases and can put more money into things like laptops for children, new textbooks, etc.
Private schools sounds like a good idea, but only if you put the blinders on and only look at suburban areas. What about rural areas, where teachers teach 7 different classes, coach 3 different sports, and run the school play? There's not enough money out there for private schools. We owe it to every student to provide an equal education, and private schools are not the answer.
Swerv said 03/03, 10:06 AM
I know all about rural areas being from a town of 1500 people. My school had only 750 students K-12. Not a single one of my teachers were teaching 7 classes. They would teach 2 or 3 at the most. Your saying the state and local governements can't deficit spend and I agree with that. But you wan't the federal governement which is is over 400 trillion dollars in debt to pay the cost. Thats absurd.
Another thing you need to look at is not all teachers are good teachers. But your proposal has no rewards for performance just everyone gets 47'000. So the good teachers are going to get just as much as the bad teachers.
You say that all students require an equal education. How is that possible in public schools where the parents are not able to decide where they want there kids to be taught. You are forced into a school according to the distict which you live. So if you are a bright student and just so happen to live in say Flint, Michigan you have to go to that public school unless your parents can afford to send you to a private school or homeschool you. If you privatize it then you would have more schools on rural areas too and this would form more competition and drive prices down
TimmyMWD said 03/03, 11:32 AM
First the focus of this debate is about reforming the public school system, so let's stick to why providing a minimum pay would be bad.
I'd invite you to read the Time magazine article about the problems with merit based pay. How can you quantify what a "bad" teacher is? Test scores? That's the only "objective" way, but what if you're teaching in a special ed class or an inner city school where five of your kids are only in school three days a week? Do you deserve a pay cut because your test scores are low? And before we can even CONSIDER merit pay, we need to bring ALL wages up to decent levels - how can you promote a culture of quality teaching when all teachers are getting paid sub-standard wages?
I leave anyone reading this with my last remark: Swerv says increasing the deficit when it is already at $400 trillion is bad. But I say this: (and this is assuming the greatest cost imaginable to avoid Swerv's saying I'm lowballing the estimate) minimum salary would cost the federal government $5 billion. Are you willing to say no to a 1.25% increase in the US federal budget for teachers; for something that costs less than what we're spending on a week in Iraq? Ask yourself.
Swerv said 03/03, 12:05 PM
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average public school teacher in the United States earned a little over 34 Dollars an hour. Public school teachers make more on average then Nurses, Members of the Armed Forces, White-collar non-sales workers, Psychologists, Chemists, Mechanical Engineers, and Economists. Not to mention people who provide public service such as Police, Firemen, Paramedics, and Security Agencies. People who protect us are paid well under 40000 dollars a year on average. Yet were going to raise what teachers get paid? Justify that, 34 dollars an hour plus benefits! If you add in benefits public school teachers get paid 61% more an hour then private school teachers. Public School teachers on average only work 36.5 hours a week. I don???t really care what Time magazine said because irrelevant. Time Magazine is a liberal biased magazine what is the minimum salary of 47000 going to do when most teachers get paid more then that already anyways. Your facts are as wrong as your argument. I believe teachers need to be paid fairly for what they do but getting the government involved is only going to make it worse. It is not the job of the Fed to take care of us
Comments
Add Your Comment
I agree newby, that's why I'm saying the federal government can pick up the tab.
TimmyMWD | 02/29/08
Report Offensive Comment
I agree with Timmy on many counts. However, the salary would need to be based on local factors / fair market wages for a particular city/region. It could be loosely pegged/derived from prevailing wages in the area for firefighters or something. X percentage of their wage. The fed gov should kick in any difference not met by the local school district. Timmy said the Fed Gov spent $300M on private schooling? How much has this joke of a war cost us? $1.3 TRILLION. I get livid thinking about how that money could have been better spent. (Just for reference - 1 Trillion is 1000 times 1 Billion)
smedman | 03/01/08
Report Offensive Comment
Whoops, I need to edit my last post. It wouldn't be a 1.25% increase; it would be a 0.00125% increase.
TimmyMWD | 03/03/08
Report Offensive Comment
12 lines down its suppost to say I don't for some reason it posted 3 question marks. Those are not supposed to be there.
Swerv | 03/03/08
Report Offensive Comment
Swerv, Wow are those numbers off. Those numbers are probably based on "contract hours," the hours that teachers are required by law to be in the building. Contract hours are usually 9 for a work day. However, most teachers remain in building several hours after; let's say 11 hours on average. The current average teacher salary is about 45,000. The average number of contracted days is in the 190s. That's only $21 an hour; and that's not counting the grading people take home. And how can you say most teachers get paid more than that? Average salary is $45,000 now; I'm saying STARTING should be $47,000. In some places, like Western Nebraska, starting salary is $21,000. The reason why the government should get involved is because teaching is a public, government profession. And you can say Time is liberal biased all you want, but you ignored the merit of my argument: if a teacher has lower test scores because he has students in his class that fall under special education, does he deserve less pay? It is almost impossible to objectively determine what makes for "quality" teaching.
TimmyMWD | 03/03/08
Report Offensive Comment
Also, rereading your final post - you said teachers only work on average 36 hours a week. This is patently false; most teachers are contracted on average 9 hours a day - that means at a legal minimum they're working 45 hours a week. This is not including "non-contract" time, time at home grading, etc.
TimmyMWD | 03/03/08
Report Offensive Comment
Your hours are obviously based on opinion since no study I have read has suggested teachers work 11 hrs unless they coach a sport in addition to teaching(which they get paid extra to do) Teaching is a public profession but is not a government job. I have never seen a school vehicle or bus with governement plates and teachers and superlatives do not hold governement positions. You really need to shut your lips and learn because you obviously went to a public school. There is no governement contracted time for teachers to be in a school building that is decided on by the school district. Lets look at all the countries that have had the governement control schooling. USSR, Nazi-Germany, Fascist Italy, China, Vietnam. That is what happens when you let government get to involved. If you give an inch they'll take a yard. I learned that in private school
Swerv | 03/03/08
Report Offensive Comment
All teachers are contracted through their school district, which is a local government that must adhere to both state and national positions. Their contract is on average 9 hours a day ... even if you don't buy the 11 hours remark 9 hours a day still means 45 hours a week, a lot more than what you claim. That would still put the average $ per hour in the twenties ... again fair lower than your estimates. Schooling IS government controlled here in the United States just like it is in Great Britain, Germany, France, Japan, etc. It is convenient to only mention "bad" nations that had public schooling. And as bad as the USSR was, it was their public school system that beat us to space, and the one we MODELED to catch up. There's a reason we have so much math and science now, it is because the Soviets kicked our tail.
TimmyMWD | 03/03/08
Report Offensive Comment
Where are you getting this 9 hrs a day I have never heard this and after contacting a member of our school board they had never heard this either. We still beat the Soviets to the moon. Its funn you mention Germany because I also did. Great Britain does not have a public school system anything like ours they are private funded grammer schools followed by boarding schools followed by collegiates. All Privately funding. Please tell me where you get your info mine comes from the Department of Labor statistics easy website to look up. Where is yours from?
Swerv | 03/03/08
Report Offensive Comment
"...many teachers work more than 40 hours a week. " - US Department of Labor; http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos069.htm <br /> And it is funny that you're asking for cites because I looked up the government's information on what a teacher makes per hour on average ... and funny ... they don't provide a stat at all, so where are your numbers coming from? (http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes252031.htm)<br /> And Great Britain is NOT privately funded, it is publicly funded that's why kids don't pay for schooling. I know this because when I went to school the British government sent over a research team to interview students (like myself) who held on-campus jobs to pay for school because Great Britain's tax base was shrinking and they were going to have to make students start to pay for their University Education. If that's not proof enough, I've got a quick quote from Encarta: "The vast majority of British children attend state-funded schools such as the one shown here. Attendance is compulsory for children between the ages of 5 and 16" (http://uk.encarta.msn.com/media_121644062_761553483_-1_1/education_in_great_britain.html")<br />
TimmyMWD | 03/03/08
Report Offensive Comment
This throwdown is over as of 12:05pm its time to let everyone who reads our arguments decide. This arguement is going to go on forever if I dont stop now. I think we need to raise the salary of Military, Police, Firemen, and Department of Homeland Security personel before we consider raising it for Teachers. That is my final statement.
Swerv | 03/03/08
Report Offensive Comment
My quick and back of the envelope math is that the school day runs about 7 hours most places. Teachers can routinely expect a good 60 minutes on top of that in the building for 8 hours. Assuming (conservatively) two hours of prep a night and you're up to 10 hour days without blinking an eye, with 182 days a year. This excludes in-service days - you can easily add a week prior to students showing up. So let's say 190 days a year, 10 hours a day for 1900 hours a year. That's in contrast with a "straight" 9-5 of 2080 days a year. This is well within the margin of error of the envelope math - consider that the 182 days treats teachers like all of their vacation would be unpaid and add two weeks of hours for that and you're at 2000 vs 2080. A swing of only a half hour of prep time a day puts teachers smack even with anyone else. So the hourly rate numbers do not seem to me persuasive - especially considering the differing levels of training and education involved between a teacher (who is looking at a minimum of 6 years of post-secondary education) and a fireman (who is not). Based on the funny math and the needless swipe at Time, my vote goes with Timmy.
PhilSandifer | 03/03/08
Report Offensive CommentPost A Comment
Please keep it clean. Bad words will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.
CNN TOP POLITICAL STORIES
TOP STORIES on TIME.COM
TIME PHOTO ESSAYS
More than 50 years of cover stories about the 35th PresidentThe Brazen Pirates of Somalia
This year, close to 90 ships have been seized in and around the Gulf of Aden, more than triple the number of 2007
(Jason R. Zalasky / US Navy / EPA )
teacher salaries definitely have to be based on a school to school basis. not every school can simply not afford that kind of money, and neither can the local taxpayers.
newby08 | 02/29/08
Report Offensive Comment