Ridiculous

[Crimsoncrew]

160 working days a year + grading papers & calling parents does not equal a lot of working hours in a year.

If you're a HS English or history teacher, it sure as hell does. I spent several years teaching, and I think I topped out at about $12/hour. That's in a profession that virtually requires some sort of post-grad education. I can't speak to the specifics of what teachers make in CA, but I struggle to think of many other professions that require advanced degrees yet pay so poorly.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

If you're a HS English or history teacher, it sure as hell does. I spent several years teaching, and I think I topped out at about $12/hour. That's in a profession that virtually requires some sort of post-grad education. I can't speak to the specifics of what teachers make in CA, but I struggle to think of many other professions that require advanced degrees yet pay so poorly.

And that doesn't take into account the coaching I did on a volunteer basis.

 

[Rathman44]

I've gone over it in painstaking detail before on the ESPN forum, which I don't want to do again. But basically it's average California salary salary + average pension times [(average age of death minus retirement age) divided by average number of years in a career]

It's been over $100K per year for a long time, and it's constantly going up with people living longer. I haven't done the breakdown for a few years, but I'll bet it's closer to $110K now (dno't quote me on that; it's just a guess).

By the way, the latest average teacher salary number I've seen for Teachers in California (without factoring in any benefits) is $67,871.

The CALSTRS budget (retired teachers) is soon going to be greater than the entire budget for K-12 schools. Switch to a 401K, and that would solve a HUGE part of the problem in one fell swoop (but that has't happened because CTA is the single biggest political contributor in the history of mankind, and they're unbeatable in California).

The big problem with your calculation is that you're assuming that X amount of pension dollars per year is worth the same amount in a current salary, when in fact, it is worth significantly less in a per year salary figure due to variables like appreciation and inflation. For instance, do you want 10K now or in 30 years? Well, you want it now because in 30 years 10K isn't going to be worth as much (inflation) and you will miss out on investing that 10K over time. I'm no financial expert but I'd bet there are even more variables that influence this total income figure considerably.

Anyways, the point is that the actual calculation is far more complicated than your simple equation and would produce a far different result - that's why I was so interested to see the work you did to calculate that figure and where you got your original data.

 

[imac_21]

Like I said, I'm starting the credential program soon. I've been around teachers my entire life. I know what goes into teaching. I'm not saying the job is easy; the hardest part is just being able to manage a classroom and having patience to deal with children (& sometimes really bad parents). What I'm saying is the hours are miniscule and the pay is extremely high for the amount of hours they work.

Maybe it's different in California than it is in BC, but the above is absolute bullshit. You've been around teachers your entire life, I've been a teacher for the last 7 years. I don't work 160 days per year, I work 220. I am paid for working 8:30 to 3:05. If I'm out the door of the school by 5:00 on any give day I consider myself lucky. Many days see me put in 10 or 11 hours at the school, then come home to work for a few more. It seems like the complaints are more directed towards lazy teachers. I'm sure we can criticize every profession if we focus on the poor and mediocre workers. If we were to focus on the Vince Youngs and Jamarcus Russells we could make a strong case that QBs should not be top 5 picks. But we know better than to paint every QB with that brush.

We are required to keep parents informed of their children's status in class. It's not an option (it was someone else that mentioned the Mr Feeney thing, but I'm addressing it here as well). Including all my benefits and salary I make approximately 80k per year, not horrible, but not exactly $100k plus.

Again, this is Canada so it may be significantly different than the USA.

The idea of teachers having to work in the summers is an interesting one. I'm wondering if other professions should be required to work outside of their regular hours in a somewhat related field. I also wonder what you would propose happens to all the people (college students and ECE folks mostly) that work in summer camps etc as well. It sounds like that proposal is someone essentially looking for a baby sitter service, which far too many people view schools as right now anyway.

Of course the union presents obstacles (putting it lightly) to solving many problems (like the aforementioned lazy teachers), but find me a union that doesn't make it difficult to weed out the weak workers.

I understand Sick has a strong anti-union agenda (always has) and needs to focus on the poor workers to really make his point, but it's absolutely ridiculous.

There was a lot more I wanted to say, but it's slipped my mind. I'm sure some replies to this will jog my memory.

 

[imac_21]

That's funny and I think I actually am getting to hate those stupid editorials. Anyone could do this nonsense with any extra work they end up doing at their own job. I know there was a similar housewife editorial out there stating they are worth over $100k a year or some ridiculous number. It was just so absurd, and kept a running tally of all the jobs being done. Now I'm a babysitter, now I'm a maid, now I'm a taxi driver, delivery person here, now I'm this, now I'm that... these editorials typically fail to factor in expenses, competition, market realities or any other realities.

You can make that type of money at daycares, but there are expenses too. And if you get success you will inevitably get competition because it's not a difficult business to replicate. A teacher also doesn't take on any business risk associated with starting up the business, and doesn't have to do any marketing to get the kids, or networking, or keeping track of the numbers, etc. etc. etc.

$10/hour or $8/hour is not the wage someone running a day care servie makes. It's the wage you pay a 15 year old to come to your house and watch your kid(s) for 3 or 4 hours so you and your wife can go out and have a peaceful evening. I think this eliminates most of the risk associated with starting a business.

I do appreciate how you're trying to build up a day care service as being significantly more difficult and valuable of a service than teaching.

 

[imac_21]

Ridiculous is right. Very right. Who are these wusses who want this kid to change up the only language he uses to express himself? It's pitiful.

What do they do if a kid who can speak is named Gunner? Does he have to change how it's spelled and pronounced?

 

[imac_21]

And that doesn't take into account the coaching I did on a volunteer basis.

Fuck, don't even get me started on the volunteer hours. The earliest I got home from work in the entire month of February was 8 pm. That was when I would get to start marking papers.

 

[MHSL82]

$10/hour or $8/hour is not the wage someone running a day care servie makes. It's the wage you pay a 15 year old to come to your house and watch your kid(s) for 3 or 4 hours so you and your wife can go out and have a peaceful evening. I think this eliminates most of the risk associated with starting a business.

I do appreciate how you're trying to build up a day care service as being significantly more difficult and valuable of a service than teaching.

Oops, you didn't quote me. I thought you did, so I responded with the following thinking that you did:

Sorry, I didn't give context. The editorial was responding to someone who called teachers "glorified babysitters." He said, ok, then pay us the babysitter rate for each kid for 8 hours a day for every school day.

I've never sent my kid to daycare, so I don't know the rates. But I was talking about babysitters anyway. And no, I don't think day care service is more valuable than teaching. You assumed that because I didn't say anything. My mom is now a teacher and works hard, I wouldn't think that of them.

--------------------------------------

for misidentifying the quoted text.

 

[Rathman44]

Maybe it's different in California than it is in BC, but the above is absolute bullshit. You've been around teachers your entire life, I've been a teacher for the last 7 years. I don't work 160 days per year, I work 220. I am paid for working 8:30 to 3:05. If I'm out the door of the school by 5:00 on any give day I consider myself lucky. Many days see me put in 10 or 11 hours at the school, then come home to work for a few more. It seems like the complaints are more directed towards lazy teachers. I'm sure we can criticize every profession if we focus on the poor and mediocre workers. If we were to focus on the Vince Youngs and Jamarcus Russells we could make a strong case that QBs should not be top 5 picks. But we know better than to paint every QB with that brush.

We are required to keep parents informed of their children's status in class. It's not an option (it was someone else that mentioned the Mr Feeney thing, but I'm addressing it here as well). Including all my benefits and salary I make approximately 80k per year, not horrible, but not exactly $100k plus.

Again, this is Canada so it may be significantly different than the USA.

The idea of teachers having to work in the summers is an interesting one. I'm wondering if other professions should be required to work outside of their regular hours in a somewhat related field. I also wonder what you would propose happens to all the people (college students and ECE folks mostly) that work in summer camps etc as well. It sounds like that proposal is someone essentially looking for a baby sitter service, which far too many people view schools as right now anyway.

Of course the union presents obstacles (putting it lightly) to solving many problems (like the aforementioned lazy teachers), but find me a union that doesn't make it difficult to weed out the weak workers.

I understand Sick has a strong anti-union agenda (always has) and needs to focus on the poor workers to really make his point, but it's absolutely ridiculous.

There was a lot more I wanted to say, but it's slipped my mind. I'm sure some replies to this will jog my memory.

First off, thank you for your hard work.
My theory is that the low pay and expensive living here in CA is weeding out more and more teachers like yourself. Yes, there are still some great teachers out there but it's not a competitive field to get into by any means. I've seen a lot of teachers who definitely work 8 hours max a day and they're checked out a lot of that time. It certainly makes you appreciate the good ones.

With that being said, what would you think about a changing the system so that you would get paid a considerable amount more...say at least 50% more but you would be required to provide extracurricular activities to students during the summer? I'm seeing less and less music, art, even athletic participation in schools these days. I feel like this would be a great opportunity for the students to try out different "fun" electives during the summer while teachers get to teach some of their own hobbies and interests. It wouldn't just be a baby-sitting opportunity (although that would help working parents and ease the community's financial burden of teachers' increased pay) it would also be an exciting opportunity for students and teachers alike to be creative. I do realize this adds more work but you'd be getting a substantial income increase and this wouldn't really add grading/paperwork. There are a number of different ways to implement this summer program but I think it's an interesting method of justifying to the short-sighted taxpayer why there should be a substantial increase in teacher's pay.

 

[MHSL82]

First off, thank you for your hard work.
My theory is that the low pay and expensive living here in CA is weeding out more and more teachers like yourself. Yes, there are still some great teachers out there but it's not a competitive field to get into by any means. I've seen a lot of teachers who definitely work 8 hours max a day and they're checked out a lot of that time. It certainly makes you appreciate the good ones.

With that being said, what would you think about a changing the system so that you would get paid a considerable amount more...say at least 50% more but you would be required to provide extracurricular activities to students during the summer? I'm seeing less and less music, art, even athletic participation in schools these days. I feel like this would be a great opportunity for the students to try out different "fun" electives during the summer while teachers get to teach some of their own hobbies and interests. It wouldn't just be a baby-sitting opportunity (although that would help working parents and ease the community's financial burden of teachers' increased pay) it would also be an exciting opportunity for students and teachers alike to be creative. I do realize this adds more work but you'd be getting a substantial income increase and this wouldn't really add grading/paperwork. There are a number of different ways to implement this summer program but I think it's an interesting method of justifying to the short-sighted taxpayer why there should be a substantial increase in teacher's pay.

Good luck finding an activity that doesn't hurt someone's feelings or send some hidden message... just kidding. (I'm referring to old games like dodge ball, etc. being removed.)

 

[NinerSickness]

Again, this is Canada so it may be significantly different than the USA.

If what you're saying is true, then it is. Vastly.

I understand Sick has a strong anti-union agenda (always has) and needs to focus on the poor workers to really make his point, but it's absolutely ridiculous.

I don't have an anti-union agenda. I have an anti PUBLIC EMPLOYEE union agenda. I'm all for private citizens forming a union if they want to. But public employees are totally different. When private sector workers strike, they're fighting with a company; people can just go somewhere else if they shut the doors. When public sector workers strike, EVERYONE is screwed. They're not fighting for a portion of something profitable; they're fighting for more money from everyone or they shut down essential public services to inflict pain (like when there's a garbage strike in cities where those services are done by the city). If people don't like what a private company is doing they can go somewhere else. If people don't like what public schools are doing, schools basically tell them: "F you; you'll take what we give you." That is, unless you're rich and can afford to pay for a private school on top of the money you're paying for public schools. Again, I have no idea what it's like in Canada.

As far as the summer thing goes, the schools would have more than enough money to pay teachers their usual monthly / weekly / daily pay during the summer if they went from pensions to a 401K. I don't think teachers should have to work during the summer for nothing, but having summers off is a stupid, archaic idea.

 

[erckm510]

If you think this is ridiculous read this article.

http://www.news-leader.com/article/.../Republic-student-r*pe-lawsuit?nclick_check=1

Special ed middle student gets raped, school admins tell her she wasn't and was told to change her story, THEY SUSPEND THE GIRL FOR A YEAR, she comes back and gets raped again by the same guy. Her mother has to get a r*pe kit done to show proof. And the school still denies wrong doing. Holy shit I am never living in Missouri.

 

[NinerSickness]

If you think this is ridiculous read this article.

http://www.news-leader.com/article/.../Republic-student-r*pe-lawsuit?nclick_check=1

Special ed middle student gets raped, school admins tell her she wasn't and was told to change her story, THEY SUSPEND THE GIRL FOR A YEAR, she comes back and gets raped again by the same guy. Her mother has to get a r*pe kit done to show proof. And the school still denies wrong doing. Holy shit I am never living in Missouri.

That's one of the most horrible things I've ever heard. That guy should have his head chopped off (among other things).

 

[erckm510]

If what you're saying is true, then it is. Vastly.

Are you speaking for all the USA or just CA sickness? Because I be shocked that a teacher making 50k in Hawaii would be making over 100k with benefits/pension

 

[NinerSickness]

If what you're saying is true, then it is. Vastly.

Are you speaking for all the USA or just CA sickness? Because I be shocked that a teacher making 50k in Hawaii would be making over 100k with benefits/pension

I'm just talking about California, but I think California was ranked like 5th or 6th in that department lats time I checked. It differs from state to state and from district to district. I remember when the Wisconson teahcers were protesting, they showed a school district where the average salary + benefits was like $127K in 2010.

And the per student cost varies as well. The cost per student in CA if you include CALSTRS was like $23K per student per year a few years ago. Without CALSTRS (retired teachers) it was like $13K per student. But LA unified school district was spending $30K (without CALSTRS) per student back in 2010 (class sizes around Sacramento are 32 per class; I don't know what they are in so-cal, but a class of 32 would be $960,000). The superintendent was interviewed & asked about that figure, and he said, “You’re using a methodology that only you are using. No, that’s not accurate. That’s not what we’re doing. I’m going to have to let you go. This is an issue to take up with the state, or your local district, to see what they are doing.” You bring up the actual number of dollars and cents being spent, and they're still in denial about it.

As far as Hawaii goes: in 2010 the average salary before benefits was $49292, which is only about $7K less than California is now. So if they have the same pension plan as CA does, I would imagine the slary + benefits is close to 100K per year.

 

[geneh_33]

What do they do if a kid who can speak is named Gunner? Does he have to change how it's spelled and pronounced?

He shouldn't have to change anything. It's just a name, it isn't like he is going to whip out a gun and start shooting people because his name is Gun or Gunner.

 

[yossarian]

Here's the actual link for teacher salaries in California, and how they compare nationwide.Average Salaries & Expenditure Percentage - CalEdFacts (CA Dept of Education)

So please, continue, I'm dying to hear more about how teachers are overpaid, and underworked, that must be why so many people go into the profession. And you know what, if the HIGHEST salary a teacher can get is 88k after doing for 20+ years, you're damn right I want a pension.

People, like the school district in the original post, make stupid decisions all the time, it's not an indictment of the entire system that one or two overly concerned administrators did something dumb. I went to high school in california in the 70s and some idiot teacher was showing bible prophecy films in the world history class. It happens -- so lets try to solve the 49ers problems first, we're all much better qualified as armchair GMs than we are as politicians talking about the public school system. And by the way, the California school system went to hell right after Howard Jarvis pushed Prop 13. Before then the California school system, UC included, was one of the best in the country.

 

[spacedoodoopistol]

The trick to inflate how big the salary looks is to include potential retirement benefits - which is more dishonest, but if you're obsessed with making them look overpaid then you want to include that like its part of their salary.

So they add in these retirement benefits (or health care), but on the flip side they won't deduct the payments the employees make into their retirement fund (or health care plan, or union dues). They take the gross of current earnings + the net of future earnings, which is nothing close to what the teachers actually get but hey, we've got an agenda to push here.

 

[erckm510]

The trick to inflate how big the salary looks is to include potential retirement benefits - which is more dishonest, but if you're obsessed with making them look overpaid then you want to include that like its part of their salary.

So they add in these retirement benefits (or health care), but on the flip side they won't deduct the payments the employees make into their retirement fund (or health care plan, or union dues). They take the gross of current earnings + the net of future earnings, which is nothing close to what the teachers actually get but hey, we've got an agenda to push here.

Well put. I have a pretty good job with great benefits and a good retirement plan but those don't help me pay the rent, put food on the table, or help with child care.

 

[EaseUrStorm]

$10/hour or $8/hour is not the wage someone running a day care servie makes. It's the wage you pay a 15 year old to come to your house and watch your kid(s) for 3 or 4 hours so you and your wife can go out and have a peaceful evening. I think this eliminates most of the risk associated with starting a business.

I do appreciate how you're trying to build up a day care service as being significantly more difficult and valuable of a service than teaching.

The owners would pull in the difference between the revenue earned per kid per hour less expenses, and you're not going to get generate $400k per year by paying a 15 year old to watch a kid. It's a different model to earn that type of money. Where did I state anything or imply anything about a "daycare service being significantly more difficult and valuable of a service than teaching?" That was not the point. The point is that you can't draw any reasonable conclusion for teachers being grossly underpaid based on that faulty logic which significantly skews the numbers.