Are Teachers under paid?

[Incredible Hulctuary]

Originally Posted by Shekky Tree

If someone pays it to them, and they voluntarily accept--I say they are paid the right amount. (In fact, since they are unionized...odds are they are overcompensated, once you add in all the terms of their employment).

But given that there are a number of subject areas that are usually understaffed and have high turnover, such as math and the sciences, they probably aren't being paid enough at least in those areas.

IMHO, what it boils down to is whether society would be better off by paying teachers a significantly better wage. If so, then I would say they are underpaid. If they were paid more, there would be a definite difference in who chooses to teach and who is able to be selected for teaching jobs. So while the average teacher today may not be underpaid, simply because there are so many bad teachers around, teaching as a profession is probably underpaid.

[fallout]

Originally Posted by techguy

But given that there are a number of subject areas that are usually understaffed and have high turnover, such as math and the sciences, they probably aren't being paid enough at least in those areas.

IMHO, what it boils down to is whether society would be better off by paying teachers a significantly better wage. If so, then I would say they are underpaid. If they were paid more, there would be a definite difference in who chooses to teach and who is able to be selected for teaching jobs. So while the average teacher today may not be underpaid, simply because there are so many bad teachers around, teaching as a profession is probably underpaid.

Wouldn't you expand this point to include Politicians. More money = better pols? How much more?

A good CEO makes 100's of times more than a senator.

[Triweasel]

Originally Posted by fallout

My quote said flogging the parents of failing kids. And I definetly used it as an extreme example.

How about a tax break to parents of kids for every A they get. You get the full credit if your kids get all A's, 80% for 4 A's... etc... Would that make parents care?

It might, but I think you are still missing my point, which is that the government (state and federal) already have explicit control over funding for public education. It would be much, much easier to effect changes through the existing channels rather than dream up some new plan. I thought you were in favor of less (and less complicated) government. What gives?

[Pseudolus]

Some interesting statements/arguments/assertions in this thread. A year from now, I'll be finding out how true they are as (knock on wood) by then I'll have my teaching certificate and will be preparing to start my first year as a high school physics teacher. One thing I can comment on already is the teacher education system. For instance, that it sucks eggs. I already have all of my subject-matter classes, so I'm pretty much taking only ed. classes (plus two bios to get a general sci certification). All except one have been totally useless hoops put up for the sake of putting up hoops. These are courses like "Ed. Psych." and "Diversity". The one good, even great course is one that chucks out all the theoretical BS taught in the other classes and just has us actually perform. We each taught mini lessons - selected from the subject matter of our own disciplines - to our classmates, to be videotaped for later dissection by ourselves and our teacher. Other non-useless experiences have been observing or volunteering in real high school classrooms.

One thing I can say: I volunteer now in an urban school, and I sure haven't "figured it out" yet. Maybe I need a longer bus ride....

[Incredible Hulctuary]

Originally Posted by fallout

Wouldn't you expand this point to include Politicians. More money = better pols? How much more?

A good CEO makes 100's of times more than a senator.

There is a point beyond which the increase in pay exceeds the increase in value provided. There is also the possibility of diminishing returns from the 'money chaser' effect -- people who are not good just chasing after the big bucks and crowding out aspiring high performers.

Whether it is politicians or teachers, keep paying them up until their marginal value matches marginal cost. We would get a better set of teachers if we paid them a half million bucks a year, but society probably wouldn't see a net gain after spending that much.

As far as politicians are concerned, I don't think their salaries are still low enough that the marginal benefit of paying them more would exceed the marginal cost, given the number of them who are willing to spend their own money and step away from much higher paying jobs in order to get elected. Most megabuck CEOs are also overpaid compared to the value they bring, but that's another rant.

[The Diabolical Biz Markie]

Originally Posted by Harry

The downside is that the parents are usually religious wackos trying to shelter their children from the real world...

Wow....you just can't help yourself, can you. :o

So...class, what we have gathered is that Harry has much better education than those poor religious wackos that home school their kids...but he does have some level of pity for the home schooled, being, as they are, the children of religious wackos.

Are you this pompous and condescending in person!?

[The Diabolical Biz Markie]

Originally Posted by Harry

I wouldn't say the odds are stacked against them at all. In fact, academically they have an advantage. The downside is that the parents are usually religious wackos trying to shelter their children from the real world...

Ah. I must have misinterpreted that snide "educated" comment you made about home schooling parents. That sure sounded like a pompous weed taking a potshot at the education level of home schoolers--which would obviously be an academic disadvantage.

You clearly didn't "mean" it "that way", I suppose, since you now think that the home schoolers "academically have an advantage".

[Mulan]

Originally Posted by fallout

How about a tax break to parents of kids for every A they get. You get the full credit if your kids get all A's, 80% for 4 A's... etc... Would that make parents care?

Can you say "grade inflation".....

[Mulan]

Originally Posted by fallout

Sometimes I wonder if you even read my post. I never said the parent has to teach anything. Impressing upon the child how important school is is their biggest victory. My parenst were/are illiterate in English, and their native tongue, they were educated up till grade 6 and Grade 4 respectively. They can not do long division. It did not stop them from raising 4 college graduates.

My point is that the attitude of the parents matters much more than knowledge. I have no idea how you brought selling treats into the equation.

I'm saying that the ways the school wishes the parents to "care" and the ways you mean that parents should care and actually my my version of caring are all very different and produce different results.

Schools want parents that will sell their fund raiser stuff, volunteer in the library, etc., and make their kids do all their homework, sleep well, well behaved clean. Kids should be cute, well behaved, prepared, conforming.

You think that parents putting a high value on a good education would make a real difference. This may involved things like volunteering or doing homework with them. But you probably mean having educated conversations with your children and reading good books together.

I think most parents really value the education but are caught up in what the school wants. They join the PTA and get sucked into all the things the school needs. They are not trained for dealing with children and can violate the privacy of students by gossiping about them to their children or other parents. Parents come to believe that to support education means that kids should be cute, well behaved, prepared, and conforming and that good parents join the PTA, volunteer at school, and sell for fundraisers.

I see that very involved parents (like parents that are trying to solve a learning problem for example) are branded bad parents and interfering ones, yet these parents are the most involved and their kids have no doubt as to their parents opinion of a good education. Yet these parents are discouraged.

My theory is that parents will be involved in education when school change their expectations about what such involvement entails.

Oh, I did read your post and I know mine did not directly answer it. I was attempting to shift the blame game from who doesn't care enough and who should make them care enough to the difference in culture between home and school that could account for some of the perception that parents do not "care".

[Harry]

Originally Posted by Shekky Tree

Ah. I must have misinterpreted that snide "educated" comment you made about home schooling parents. That sure sounded like a pompous weed taking a potshot at the education level of home schoolers--which would obviously be an academic disadvantage.

You clearly didn't "mean" it "that way", I suppose, since you now think that the home schoolers "academically have an advantage".

I meant it that way, but the other advantages mentioned overcome that disadvantage.