Ridiculous

[NinerSickness]

Here are the numbers used to calculate the TMV of the average teacher salary + value of pension. Now I hope you can stop calling this an "agenda" or an "exaggeration."

Average age of member death: 86.1 <--- And this is trending upwards
Current 10 year boond rate: 2.09%
Average teacher pension in California: $51,072
Average amount of money contributed to retirement over 30 years at 8% of salary with a 2.09% rate of return compounding monthly: $223,422
Median retirement age of CALSTRS member: 61.2
Average length of retirement: 24.9 years

24.9 years times $51.072 is $1,271,693
$1.271,693 minus $223,422 is $1,048,270. That amount divided by 30 years (fully vested) is $34,942 per year.

$34,942 + $67,871 = $102,813

Plus: there's excellent medical coverage.

 

[deep9er]

Here are the numbers used to calculate the TMV of the average teacher salary + value of pension. Now I hope you can stop calling this an "agenda" or an "exaggeration."

Average age of member death: 86.1 <--- And this is trending upwards
Current 10 year boond rate: 2.09%
Average teacher pension in California: $51,072
Average amount of money contributed to retirement over 30 years at 8% of salary with a 2.09% rate of return compounding monthly: $223,422
Median retirement age of CALSTRS member: 61.2
Average length of retirement: 24.9 years

24.9 years times $51.072 is $1,271,693
$1.271,693 minus $223,422 is $1,048,270. That amount divided by 30 years (fully vested) is $34,942 per year.

$34,942 + $67,871 = $102,813

Plus: there's excellent medical coverage.

I follow the $34,942 above, but where did the $67,871 come from? in an earlier post, wasn't the average annual salary about $49,000?

 

[NinerSickness]

I follow the $34,942 above, but where did the $67,871 come from? in an earlier post, wasn't the average annual salary about $49,000?

In California, the average annual salary for a teacher is $67,871.

The link yossarian provided agrees with that number, but here's another one:

California Teachers | Teaching Programs in California | TeacherPortal

 

[deep9er]

In California, the average annual salary for a teacher is $67,871.

The link yossarian provided agrees with that number, but here's another one:

California Teachers | Teaching Programs in California | TeacherPortal

"average" annual salary? wow!

it is the question we face when timing our retirement.............how long will I live?

 

[imac_21]

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.

I don't think I would have a problem with doing "extra-curriculars" during the summer, but will they be required for kids? If not, many of them (and their parents likely) will opt out of participating and you're left with a lot of teachers being paid to work with a few kids. It sounds too much like forcing kids to get involved in something they don't want to be involved in, which will result in issues within the program (at least with the teenagers, and I'm a high school teacher, so that's where my experience lies).

And as I mentioned before, you risk removing ECE workers, and college students who take summer jobs working at camps that offer these types of programs to get experience working with children with plans to go into education.

The other issue that would create is a need for supplying teachers with vacation days. As a teacher it's rather enjoyable having 2 months off in the summer (Spring Break and Christmas Break are different animals because much of that time is spent working anyhow), but you are locked into your vacation. Again, I don't know the California Teacher's Agreement, but we get 0 days of vacation. There is no way the union would agree to add 8 or 9 weeks of work during what is really the only true vacation time teachers receive without getting vacation in return, particularly given the degree of stress teachers deal with on a daily basis.

I hate the idea of taking a week off at a time and trusting someone else with my class (in my 7+ years of teaching I have taken 2 sick days, and both times were exam days so I knew no teaching would be happening). Assuming teachers would max out at 5 or 6 weeks of vacation per year, I think many would just use that in the summer anyway because, like me, they wouldn't want to take a significant amount of time away from their classes.

Sorry that was such a poorly written post. Hopefully the point is noticeable.

 

[imac_21]

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



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.

So public sectors workers should be at the mercy of the government? My union has not had a negotiated contract in place for roughly 13 years. The contract expires, negotiations go poorly, we take a strike vote (we aren't allowed a full strike) - we withdraw from all volunteer activities (coaching, school plays, concerts), go to working "bell to bell" - and the schools remain open.

During this time we have gone one of the higher paid provinces for teachers to one of the lowest. We had a contract legislated on us last year with another 0% pay increase - not even anything to account for inflation. If I were to move from BC to Alberta, one province over for those still reading and unfamiliar with Canadian geography, I would instantly get approximately a 15k per year raise (as well as an unofficial 7% with not provincial sales tax in Alberta). The average house price where I live right now is just under 600k (I know, nothing like SF). If I moved to the East Coast, my salary would remain essentially the same but the average house price would be roughly $180k.

What can we as a union do about all this? Nothing. So what your post seems to say is my colleagues and I should have to deal with this situation because we chose to go into education? Most people tend to believe that being a teacher (when done for the right reasons) is a noble profession. Should I have to essentially take a pay cut every year because I chose to work in the public sector?

As for working in the summer (I addressed this in my last post as well), if you are going to require teachers to work year round, you have to provide vacation days, which will only hurt the students in the grand scheme of things.

 

[imac_21]

This link takes you to the salary grid for the district in which I teach. The column headings (cat 4, 5, 5+ and 6) work as follows:
Cat 4 (no longer possible, but some teachers are grandfathered in) is 4 years of post secondary education

Cat 5 is 5 years of post sec (now required, either through a 5 year BEd program, or a 4 year Bach with 1 year teacher certification)

Cat 5+ is having 30 credits (10 courses) of 3rd and 4th year post sec courses beyond the requirement for Cat 5

Cat 6 is a Masters degree (7 years of post sec with 5 year program + 2 years for Masters).

The numbers in the far left column are years of experience. I plan on starting my masters in 2014. When I complete it I will be at the maximum possible salary and will make approximately $81,500. That's with 7 years of post sec education in one of the 3 highest cost of living cities in Canada.

http://www.bcpsea.bc.ca/documents/wage-schedules/62-LP-Grid Harmonization to 2010 R1.pdf

 

[yossarian]

I still think teachers are underpaid when you look at the level that they top out at. Someone can be a great high school teacher -- preparing kids to be successful in college and in life, doing for 20 or 30 years and still they top out at a fairly low salary. I always thought the pension benefits was to make up for that, but now that is being taken away too. I have my own doubts about how teachers are tenured, etc., there was an article some time ago in the New York Times about how a group of teachers who had misbehaved in one way or another were shunted off to a class because they couldn't fire them -- that seems wrong, but they are not overpaid. Why is it that in every economic crisis or budget mishap there is a certain segment of our society that goes after people who are poor, are working at low wage jobs, etc., somehow claiming that they are responsible for whatever economic downturn is going on? (and I know I said earlier we should leave off the politics, but since no one listened I'm going to chime in).

 

[NinerSickness]

imac, first of all I'll address your comment about summers off. If schools went year 'round, they would not have to give teachers vacation days. They could still have set vacation days over the course of the year. Just not 100 of them. And just not 12 weeks in a row. That is WAY too much time off. Kids forget everything over the summer, and teachers end up doing review for the first 4-8 weeks of school. I think school days are too long at LEAST for 7th - 12th grade; their days should start laterer IMO. Here's how I would fix the problem:

1. Make school days a little shorter (at least for 7-12th grades)
2. Cut vacation days (here in California; if what you say is true then you're in school many moredays) by about 66%.
3. Pay teachers for the extra total hours worked
4. Get rid of pensions to fund the extra pay; switch to a 401K
5. Possibly get rid of 11th & 12 grade altogether and require 12 units minimum at a community college in core areas of study.

As far as the other issues you brought up, I don't even think running schools should be a function of government at all. I'm 100% for parental choice as to where they send their children. Let schools compete for your business the same way restaurants do and let the market dictate how much teachers are worth. And if people can't afford tuition, give them a state voucher for whatever the going rate tuition is.

The only government profession I'm not 100% against having a union is police officers because of specific kinds of liabilities that come with the job. But I'm really not 100% sure either way on that.

The function of government employees is to collectively perform tasks that individuals are not capable of doing themselves like having an army ready, enforcing laws, etc. It's the elected officials' job to fill those positions & manage them (make sure there isn't huge turnover, etc). They should have the power to give raises, cut pay, give benefits, cut benefits or do whatever is necessary to run that function of government as efficiently as possible. If turnover is huge and you're having trouble filling the positions, increase the pay until you don't have those problems any more.

As it is now (in California at least) public employee unions have ensured that the state is doing the opposite of running efficiently. Pretty soon, they will be paying more money to people who aren't working than to people who are working. WHEN PEOPLE STOP WORKING THEY SHOULD STOP GETTING A PAY CHECK! What ends up happening is they just keep giving the public a lower and lower quality product (like increasing class sizes all the way up to 32 now when it was 20 a few years ago).

My goal would be for schools to run as efficiently as possible. Schools are not there to ensure that people have jobs; they're there to educate children. Herding them into a class with 31 other kids & 1 teacher is not doing that.

 

[NinerSickness]

I still think teachers are underpaid when you look at the level that they top out at.

Where are you getting teacher salaries topping out? The link you provided said "highest teacher annual salary," but I've never heard of a teacher's salary topping out. Plus, the largest number in a Unified School District on those charts said $85,397, and I have a relative who works in a Unified School District whose salary is higher than that.

 

[yossarian]

Where are you getting teacher salaries topping out? The link you provided said "highest teacher annual salary," but I've never heard of a teacher's salary topping out. Plus, the largest number in a Unified School District on those charts said $85,397, and I have a relative who works in a Unified School District whose salary is higher than that.

I guess I thought that's what they meant when they said "highest." And frankly, without some way to verify it, I am suspicious when this whole teachers make too much money thread starts to veer into personal stories of someone making a ton of money, etc. It reminds me of Reagan's bullshit story about the welfare queen.

 

[yossarian]

This link takes you to the salary grid for the district in which I teach. The column headings (cat 4, 5, 5+ and 6) work as follows:
Cat 4 (no longer possible, but some teachers are grandfathered in) is 4 years of post secondary education

Cat 5 is 5 years of post sec (now required, either through a 5 year BEd program, or a 4 year Bach with 1 year teacher certification)

Cat 5+ is having 30 credits (10 courses) of 3rd and 4th year post sec courses beyond the requirement for Cat 5

Cat 6 is a Masters degree (7 years of post sec with 5 year program + 2 years for Masters).

The numbers in the far left column are years of experience. I plan on starting my masters in 2014. When I complete it I will be at the maximum possible salary and will make approximately $81,500. That's with 7 years of post sec education in one of the 3 highest cost of living cities in Canada.

http://www.bcpsea.bc.ca/documents/wage-schedules/62-LP-Grid Harmonization to 2010 R1.pdf

I take it IMAC you get costs of living increases only from then on, which given the rate of inflation is pretty damn low.

 

[NinerSickness]

I guess I thought that's what they meant when they said "highest." And frankly, without some way to verify it, I am suspicious when this whole teachers make too much money thread starts to veer into personal stories of someone making a ton of money, etc. It reminds me of Reagan's bullshit story about the welfare queen.

I don't know what to say to that... ummm... I guess you have my word, and you can either choose to believe me or think I'm lying. I don't know what lying about that would accomplish; it wouldn't prove anything, and I only mentioned it because I was confused about what you meant by topping out.

 

[imac_21]

As far as the other issues you brought up, I don't even think running schools should be a function of government at all. I'm 100% for parental choice as to where they send their children. Let schools compete for your business the same way restaurants do and let the market dictate how much teachers are worth. And if people can't afford tuition, give them a state voucher for whatever the going rate tuition is.

This is the portion of your post I strongly disagree with, so rather than turning this into trading thousand word posts, I'll focus here.

I used to share this idea, that teachers should work the same way most other professions do. The problem with that is that school is required for children. If you allow the marked to dictate the worth of individual teachers, than the schools in the affluent areas will get all the top teachers. You can supply tuition vouchers to the underprivileged, but that won't stop the very well off from donating to their children's schools so they can have the best possible educators. If it worked that way here, there are certain schools that would be able to offer me (if they wanted) considerably more than others (including the school at which I'm currently working). This leaves the low income area schools with the less competent or extremely young teachers while the rich kids get the top of the line and experienced ones.

In most major cities you have what boils down to rich and poor districts. The idea of public education is to give all students the same opportunity. By privatizing it, you remove that level playing field and are rewarding children for their parents' bank accounts, but also punishing them if their parents are not well off.

 

[imac_21]

Where are you getting teacher salaries topping out? The link you provided said "highest teacher annual salary," but I've never heard of a teacher's salary topping out. Plus, the largest number in a Unified School District on those charts said $85,397, and I have a relative who works in a Unified School District whose salary is higher than that.

Again, I don't work in the USA, but my salary will top out at just over 80k under our current contract (can't call it a CBA because it wasn't bargained). That's IF I choose to spend 7 years in post secondary education. I posted a link to the salary grid for my district a few posts up.

 

[imac_21]

I take it IMAC you get costs of living increases only from then on, which given the rate of inflation is pretty damn low.

Not under the most recent offers. Last June we had a contract legislated on us that was only a ten month contract (there was a provincial election last month). The government's standing offer is what they call "net zero" which means any gains we make in negotiations much come with the equivalent financial concessions. If we want smaller class sizes (meaning more classes, meaning more teachers, we have to give back from salary), if we want any raise whatsoever, include cost of living, we have to account for that financial gain elsewhere. To be fair, the government has taken this position with all public sector unions.

Getting away from the financial side of the negotiations, the government has also removed our right to collectively bargain class size and composition (how many designated learning disability, or other special needs students can be in a class). The union challenged this in the supreme court and won, so the government passed legislation basically saying the supreme court couldn't make that ruling and in current negotiations is insisting those are non-negotiable items.

Sickness, from what I understand is perfectly okay with this because we are a public sector union and the government should be able to do whatever they want with our contract.

 

[EaseUrStorm]

This is the portion of your post I strongly disagree with, so rather than turning this into trading thousand word posts, I'll focus here.

I used to share this idea, that teachers should work the same way most other professions do. The problem with that is that school is required for children. If you allow the marked to dictate the worth of individual teachers, than the schools in the affluent areas will get all the top teachers. You can supply tuition vouchers to the underprivileged, but that won't stop the very well off from donating to their children's schools so they can have the best possible educators. If it worked that way here, there are certain schools that would be able to offer me (if they wanted) considerably more than others (including the school at which I'm currently working). This leaves the low income area schools with the less competent or extremely young teachers while the rich kids get the top of the line and experienced ones.

The idea of public education is to give all students the same opportunity. By privatizing it, you remove that level playing field and are rewarding children for their parents' bank accounts, but also punishing them if their parents are not well off.

The above is pretty much how it already works though where I live. The most affluent parents can send their kids to private schools. Then parents in the affluent districts are collectively significantly more willing to pay much higher local school specific taxes to the public schools compared to other areas, and teachers naturally gravitate toward those districts because the schools have a better reputation and do pay more for the cost of living adjustment. The schools in poorer areas tend to end up with lower paid, younger teachers, and have more turnover.

If you opened the schools up to competition, I would assume the most affluent schools would draw the best teachers possible, including ones currently in other professions.

It's tough to structure it in a way to level the playing field for the poorer areas, but the way it is structured right now in California is draining gobs of taxpayer money.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Here are the numbers used to calculate the TMV of the average teacher salary + value of pension. Now I hope you can stop calling this an "agenda" or an "exaggeration."

Average age of member death: 86.1 <--- And this is trending upwards
Current 10 year boond rate: 2.09%
Average teacher pension in California: $51,072
Average amount of money contributed to retirement over 30 years at 8% of salary with a 2.09% rate of return compounding monthly: $223,422
Median retirement age of CALSTRS member: 61.2
Average length of retirement: 24.9 years

24.9 years times $51.072 is $1,271,693
$1.271,693 minus $223,422 is $1,048,270. That amount divided by 30 years (fully vested) is $34,942 per year.

$34,942 + $67,871 = $102,813

Plus: there's excellent medical coverage.

I wonder how that compares to other occupations requiring post-graduate degrees in CA. You have numbers on that?

 

[EaseUrStorm]

How many teachers in California on average have a post graduate degree?

I have four family members who were or are teachers. Only one of them has a post graduate degree, and none of the other three who live in California have one. Two are/were high school teachers, one elementary, and one teaches college in a different state (not even sure if that one is even in the same system and should be included).

One gets more in salary than she would be able to earn in a private sector job, no question at all in my mind. I'd say the pension would really put the compensation over the top in comparison, except for the double dipping rule that takes away SS benefits. If she was working in a private sector job for less salary and didn't have to take the same hit, she'd still be better off for total compensation as a teacher because the salary is higher, and the total change in SS/pension compensation wouldn't be huge.

One switched to a private sector job after about four years so I don't think she gets any pension. She probably makes more on an hourly basis now, but not significantly. TBD but my bet based on how it's playing out so far she would have been better off financially with the pension (but not for her personally).

The college teacher with post graduate degrees I'd say is significantly underpaid compared to her private sector peers, and can confidently say that without even having a clue about her pension because her peers would basically be doctors and lawyers.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

How many teachers in California on average have a post graduate degree?

I have four family members who were or are teachers. Only one of them has a post graduate degree, and none of the other three who live in California have one. Two are/were high school teachers, one elementary, and one teaches college in a different state (not even sure if that one is even in the same system and should be included).

One gets more in salary than she would be able to earn in a private sector job, no question at all in my mind. I'd say the pension would really put the compensation over the top in comparison, except for the double dipping rule that takes away SS benefits. If she was working in a private sector job for less salary and didn't have to take the same hit, she'd still be better off for total compensation as a teacher because the salary is higher, and the total change in SS/pension compensation wouldn't be huge.

One switched to a private sector job after about four years so I don't think she gets any pension. She probably makes more on an hourly basis now, but not significantly. TBD but my bet based on how it's playing out so far she would have been better off financially with the pension (but not for her personally).

The college teacher with post graduate degrees I'd say is significantly underpaid compared to her private sector peers, and can confidently say that without even having a clue about her pension because her peers would basically be doctors and lawyers.

My understanding is that you need at least certification to teach at a public school in CA. I believe that's usually a year of classwork primarily and then some amount of student teaching. We're not talking about med school, but it's still over a year of post-graduate education.

Private schools aren't held to the same standard, but in my experience, most will require some sort of advanced degree within a few years of beginning one's career.