Are Teachers under paid?

[Frinky]

Originally Posted by Broncos99

Not true. With a pay raise some of them would want to work all year. Without it, none of them would. Assuming teachers are less financially motivated than other professionals, free time is more valuable to them relative to their pay. Using your logic, if you're making 100k a year, working 50 hours a week, would want to work 75 hours a week for 150k? For some yes, but for many the loss of free time just isn't worth it. The 2 months off allows teachers to spend summers raising their children, relaxing, etc.

Implying that for the rest of the year, they don't raise their children, or relax? Somehow, all other professions have members who DO have children! The teaching field has more women since for many it's a second job, with the husband doing other, full-time work. Besides, stretching the school year out would mean that the work load could be stretched out. I'm not saying there should be no time off, but 3 months?!?! How about 1 month? So much time every year is spent reviewing what kids forgot over the summer.

And don't get me started on how this would help poor families, who, during summer months, have to worry about what their kids do during the day.

And your numbers are way too high to make sense. Most people would not work 75 hours a week, no. But teachers don't make 100k, so let's not go there. Also, we're not talking about going from lots of hours per week to even more, we're talking about 1/4 of the year in which they don't work, that maybe they could. Crazy.

[Frinky]

Originally Posted by Westley

And, the teachers chose a career that has exactly that schedule and always has. It's not like it was a nasty surprise. Some of them chose it for that reason.

Anecdotal evidence that means nothing: at my HS, they had to twist arms and fight with teachers to get them to work summers (for extra pay), until the teachers were five years from retirement and could use the extra pay to go into the pension calculation; then, the teachers would fight over it. It was funny to watch, because it seemed like they couldn't balance it out: when I was there, the science teachers were all ready to retire, and fighting to teach more, but the English teachers were all young and fighting for summers off. It was different when my brother was there.

Yes, but your evidence is from people who know the system, and chose it. There is no evidence of those who would like to do it year round, since most of those people ruled out teaching as a profession. I know I did. Let's see, low pay, no respect, ....hmmmm....

[Frinky]

Besides, people who choose to teach based on the 3 months off, rather than pay, or doing what they love, or helping kids (or some combination of those, were teachers paid better) probably don't make the best teachers anyway.

"What! Stay here with these little monsters over the summer! No way! My husband makes enough money already, thank you very much!"

[Truth Soldier]

I think a better question would be: is the profession of teaching accorded enough respect, culturally speaking? I think it could hold a higher status, but that's not one of those things you can just change.

[Uncle Gary]

Originally Posted by Frinky

Implying that for the rest of the year, they don't raise their children, or relax? Somehow, all other professions have members who DO have children! The teaching field has more women since for many it's a second job, with the husband doing other, full-time work. Besides, stretching the school year out would mean that the work load could be stretched out. I'm not saying there should be no time off, but 3 months?!?! How about 1 month? So much time every year is spent reviewing what kids forgot over the summer.

And don't get me started on how this would help poor families, who, during summer months, have to worry about what their kids do during the day.

And your numbers are way too high to make sense. Most people would not work 75 hours a week, no. But teachers don't make 100k, so let's not go there. Also, we're not talking about going from lots of hours per week to even more, we're talking about 1/4 of the year in which they don't work, that maybe they could. Crazy.

I didn't ask if a teacher making 100,000/yr, I asked if you, an actuary were making 100,000 a year. You don't know any doctors/lawyers/bankers etc who work 75 hrs a week? It's not the norm, but it's not rare. The point is not everyone's goal is to make as much money as possible. Some value free time more than others. If you think kids should be in school all summer, that's an opinion you have a right to, but I remember summers off as a kid and wouldn't trade them for any amount of education in the world. There's no time limit on education, it will always be there. You can go to school for as long as you want to. Childhood on the other hand....I think things should stay as they are, summers off, Christmas off, Thanksgiving off....the more time they have to be kids the better. Sure there are kids who get into trouble, but those kids will get into trouble with summer school or without it. In fact aren't those the kids who are usually in summer school? I won't even get into the costs involved in extending the school year 2 or 3 months a year, they can't afford the 9 months they are there as it is, that's what this whole discussion is about remember?

[Frinky]

Originally Posted by Broncos99

I didn't ask if a teacher making 100,000/yr, I asked if you, an actuary were making 100,000 a year. You don't know any doctors/lawyers/bankers etc who work 75 hrs a week? It's not the norm, but it's not rare. The point is not everyone's goal is to make as much money as possible. Some value free time more than others. If you think kids should be in school all summer, that's an opinion you have a right to, but I remember summers off as a kid and wouldn't trade them for any amount of education in the world. There's no time limit on education, it will always be there. You can go to school for as long as you want to. Childhood on the other hand....I think things should stay as they are, summers off, Christmas off, Thanksgiving off....the more time they have to be kids the better. Sure there are kids who get into trouble, but those kids will get into trouble with summer school or without it. In fact aren't those the kids who are usually in summer school? I won't even get into the costs involved in extending the school year 2 or 3 months a year, they can't afford the 9 months they are there as it is, that's what this whole discussion is about remember?

Yeah, and you make a good point about summers as a kid, but I do remember being bored for the last month or so. I just think we could at least halve the summer vacation, and sprinkle those days throughout the year. That way, the year isn't as grueling for both kids and teachers alike. Teachers could take more time with their lesson plan, etc.

When I was in 8th grade, we used to get every 4th Friday as a 1/2 day, and we'd all go get pizza or something. Most of the class spent more fun time together like that, and I think some kind of middle ground between your point and mine could be reached.

That way, also, when we talk about teacher pay, we won't have to factor in that it's not a full year job.

[jadzia]

Originally Posted by Will Durant

Just 20%? I'm surprised. I would have thought the number was higher.

I think almost all professionals work more than 41 hours a week.

Yes, but the teachers salary is usually based with others professions within the government. These salaries are usually less than in the private, but they usually work around 37.5 to 40 hours a week. The union don't ask for salaries competitive with every professions, but with equivalent jobs with equivalent amount of work in the governement.

For exemple, teachers in Quebec are paid 80 % (or is it 90%) of the salary of an equivalent profession (the classification was established by the government), because they said teachers worked less, but when they did their studies, it was found the teachers worked slightly more.

[fallout]

Originally Posted by Incredible Hulctuary

Paying more would increase the incentive to stay for everybody, but it would have a greater effect on the better ones. Most of the lousy ones already are at the level where teaching is the best paying job they can get. In addition, with an increased supply of high-quality individuals who want to enter the profession, there will be less tolerance for poor performance.

Yes, but balance that with AA and the quality of applicants goes back down, correct?

Originally Posted by Truth Soldier

I think a better question would be: is the profession of teaching accorded enough respect, culturally speaking? I think it could hold a higher status, but that's not one of those things you can just change.

If degrees in education didn't contain the high degree of fluff courses and nonsense that they do, perhaps the profession would be accorded more respect.

Too many of us know (or have had) teachers who couldn't think their way out of a paper bag for them to hold a higher status.

[Truth Soldier]

Well, this is a circular thing. Part of the reason that we have these idiot education programs and bad teachers is that education is not that prestigious a field to enter. I don't think people respect the idea of education all that much in our culture, and our brightest minds tend not to go there.