Speaking as an educator at the collegiate level, I can say that, while it's not nearly as bad as it is at the grade school level, things aren't all roses here either. Too high a percentage of tuition is going into bloat in administration and real estate, and institutions are putting too high a percentage of the instruction on the backs of adjuncts, who are paid way, way less than tenure-track professors and typically don't get the state or private benefits.
Little real fallout? Last I did any research, most school systems hire new teachers on annual contracts. Meaning you have a job from the start to the end of the school your with NO guarantee for the year after. Meaning you can be let go for any number of reasons reguardless of your job performance. Just think about that for a second.
At least where I live once a teacher gets 3 years in the same district they get tenure. Once that happens they are pretty much bulletproof. The district would need to let go of every single person with less senority before the teacher with tenure could have their job eliminated. It can be a pain getting to those 3 years for sure, as they get dropped for no reason, but once there the job security is unreal.
Bronty is onto something - salary (or rate if you're a contractor) is determined by skill level (or, the opposite version of that idea is "how FUBAR will things get if you screw up- ok, let's pay a really smart person so it doesn't happen").
There's another approach to compensation that reveals an imbalance that I think is felt in this thread (and in the working US in general) but it's hard to contextualize- the 2 parts to a job (intelligence and emotional intelligence) and the pay-rate imbalance between them.
Mechanical engineers, financial reporting managers, AVP of Application Support, are all technical jobs that fill a specific role in a project or the on-going maintenance of a project. Intelligence is high, emotional intel is low (it's an exaggeration- it's somewhere in the middle but weighted towards intelligence) A vast amount of these guys (at least that I've placed) aren't dynamic storytellers, some barely have command of the language, but can write some crazy efficient QA automation scripts.
Teachers, the intelligence is low and emotional intelligence is high (AGAIN it's an exaggeration- it's somewhere in the middle but weighted towards emotional intelligence). And before you trigger, you delicate flower, teachers are not stupid AT ALL, but their stated core job is repetition of a lesson plan (that they had to create- again, not stupid at all. That shit takes a LOT of work on the front end)- that job description doesn't include that heavily lifting of student interaction.
The standard tropes have been regurgitated again and again, even in this thread: it's so hard to be a teacher, so much time to do work with kids who don't want to learn, etc. We're talking emotional intelligence - navigating the wildly choppy waters of social interaction with the public (in this case a million different personality types) which, day-to-day, is draining and VERY hard to measure.
I believe the working world sees a set lesson plan gives their knee-jerk opinion: "well, all they have to do is stand up and talk." That's about 1/3rd true, the emotional intelligence necessary to deal with a dynamic school environment is immense. Since it's tough to measure EI, the people who work in hard numbers and metrics see teacher's pay as less worthy to their work, which usually has clear, set goals.
TLDNR: Folks who program computers have an easier way to determine their worth because they use intelligence, whilst teachers have a hard time getting more pay because their job difficulty is based on emotional intelligence.
Little real fallout? Last I did any research, most school systems hire new teachers on annual contracts. Meaning you have a job from the start to the end of the school your with NO guarantee for the year after. Meaning you can be let go for any number of reasons reguardless of your job performance. Just think about that for a second.
At least where I live once a teacher gets 3 years in the same district they get tenure. Once that happens they are pretty much bulletproof. The district would need to let go of every single person with less senority before the teacher with tenure could have their job eliminated. It can be a pain getting to those 3 years for sure, as they get dropped for no reason, but once there the job security is unreal.
Yes, they are doing away with tenure from what I heard in a lot of counties.
It's not always bad for teachers. It really depends where you work. The pensions where I live are ridiculous. Teachers retire in their 50s and then are making 6 figures in retirement because they get 80% of their highest year salary. Then they are long term subs and are getting paid well for it.
Edit: My wife was a teacher and worked a lot of hours, including extracurriculars she ran. However, she was shocked at the insane hours I work. Try leaving every day before your kids get up and getting home after midnight for two months straight in addition to coming home after dinner three other months of the year. Almost half of the year my wife is essentially a single parent because of my hours. There are careers with far worse hours than teachers.
Yes, and I respect the job, I'm sure it's not easy. That said, a doctor screws up, somebody dies. A defence lawyer screws up, somebody goes to jail. A teacher screws up what they grade something or a days lesson? Possibly a little embarrassment. Little real fallout. So I wouldn't say teachers are underpaid or overpaid on the face of it, but all I know about the job is what I've seen from friends.
Little real fallout? Last I did any research, most school systems hire new teachers on annual contracts. Meaning you have a job from the start to the end of the school your with NO guarantee for the year after. Meaning you can be let go for any number of reasons reguardless of your job performance. Just think about that for a second.
Im sorry but the fact that you think that's a big deal is difficult for me to process. A lot of jobs you can be there Monday screw up and be gone Tuesday.
Sorry, I forget you buy 100k paintings. Sorry for trying to explain the struggles some go through.
My wife is a teacher at a private school and makes well under $30k a year and spends well over $2k each year on supplies, so I understand where a lot of people are coming from.
But what's the deal with the argument that teachers can be fired for any number of reasons? You mean, like 99% of all other jobs in the world? At least most teachers have contracts for any given year. That's way more than most people get.
My wife is a teacher at a private school and makes well under $30k a year and spends well over $2k each year on supplies, so I understand where a lot of people are coming from.
But what's the deal with the argument that teachers can be fired for any number of reasons? You mean, like 99% of all other jobs in the world? At least most teachers have contracts for any given year. That's way more than most people get.
Annual contracts are just that, you are hired from "x" to "x". From what I know you can be released at any point in etween that range with little or no explanation given.
My wife is a teacher at a private school and makes well under $30k a year and spends well over $2k each year on supplies, so I understand where a lot of people are coming from.
That sucks and that does seem underpaid. I do think gender comes into it as well. I am going to generalize here so let's remember they are generalizations... but women, on average, are more interested in jobs like being elementary teachers where there is a really high degree of interaction with other people. Teaching also fits well with the lifestyle of some mothers who want a job that gives them the flexibility to be with the kids in the summer when their own kids are off school.
Both of those things, while not affecting the difficulty of the job, will drag down salaries by increasing the supply pool of people willing/wanting to do the job.
Look, the best way to look at it in my opinion is real simple. If they needed more teachers, they would pay more money. The fact that they don't pay more money means there are enough applicants to go around. Why would you expect the employer to pay more than they need to? That's just not the way it works.
My wife is a teacher at a private school and makes well under $30k a year and spends well over $2k each year on supplies, so I understand where a lot of people are coming from.
But what's the deal with the argument that teachers can be fired for any number of reasons? You mean, like 99% of all other jobs in the world? At least most teachers have contracts for any given year. That's way more than most people get.
Annual contracts are just that, you are hired from "x" to "x". From what I know you can be released at any point in etween that range with little or no explanation given.
Just like 99% of all other jobs in the world. Except that anyone with a contract typicall has a little more protection than someone without.
I'm on the side that says that MOST (certainly not all) teachers are under paid. But the argument that teachers have it worse than others because they may not have a job the following year doens't hold water.
My wife is a teacher at a private school and makes well under $30k a year and spends well over $2k each year on supplies, so I understand where a lot of people are coming from.
But what's the deal with the argument that teachers can be fired for any number of reasons? You mean, like 99% of all other jobs in the world? At least most teachers have contracts for any given year. That's way more than most people get.
Annual contracts are just that, you are hired from "x" to "x". From what I know you can be released at any point in etween that range with little or no explanation given.
Just like 99% of all other jobs in the world. Except that anyone with a contract typicall has a little more protection than someone without.
I'm on the side that says that MOST (certainly not all) teachers are under paid. But the argument that teachers have it worse than others because they may not have a job the following year doens't hold water.
That isn't the original argument presented by the OP. This is meant to be in addition to everything else everyone has said. Job security is one aspect to worry about, which is something most teachers used ti have. That is no longer the case in some states. Instead of discouraging people to come into the profession, there should at least be some perks to go along with the job. Being given $300 or so on supplies for an entire year is very, very low. Different counties/districts have different funding so some places are better off than most. There is no easy solution, but to state teachers being underpaid is a myth, as the argument is by OP, is something I am not buying.
My wife is a teacher at a private school and makes well under $30k a year and spends well over $2k each year on supplies, so I understand where a lot of people are coming from.
That sucks and that does seem underpaid. I do think gender comes into it as well. I am going to generalize here so let's remember they are generalizations... but women, on average, are more interested in jobs like being elementary teachers where there is a really high degree of interaction with other people. Teaching also fits well with the lifestyle of some mothers who want a job that gives them the flexibility to be with the kids in the summer when their own kids are off school.
Both of those things, while not affecting the difficulty of the job, will drag down salaries by increasing the supply pool of people willing/wanting to do the job.
Look, the best way to look at it in my opinion is real simple. If they needed more teachers, they would pay more money. The fact that they don't pay more money means there are enough applicants to go around. Why would you expect the employer to pay more than they need to? That's just not the way it works.
Not sure if that was directed towards me or not (but I was quoted). However, I never said that my wife or I expected her employer to pay her more. She loves her job and hopes to spend the rest of her career right where she is at. Our entire budget is based around my income so as long as she is happy, her pay doesn't matter. I only said that I understand where some people come from because if Thanos snapped his fingers and I disappeared tomorrow there is no way that my wife would be able to support herself (and our kids) on her salary alone. This makes me wonder if life insurance pays out on death by "the snap." Don't know yet if this is covered in End Game or not.
That isn't the original argument presented by the OP. This is meant to be in addition to everything else everyone has said. Job security is one aspect to worry about, which is something most teachers used ti have. That is no longer the case in some states. Instead of discouraging people to come into the profession, there should at least be some perks to go along with the job. Being given $300 or so on supplies for an entire year is very, very low. Different counties/districts have different funding so some places are better off than most. There is no easy solution, but to state teachers being underpaid is a myth, as the argument is by OP, is something I am not buying.
As I said, I don't disagree about teachers being underpaid. I think this entire thread is a troll post anyway. I just don't agree with the job security aspect because most teacher's jobs are safer for at least a year compared to most other workers.
My wife is a teacher at a private school and makes well under $30k a year and spends well over $2k each year on supplies, so I understand where a lot of people are coming from.
That sucks and that does seem underpaid. I do think gender comes into it as well. I am going to generalize here so let's remember they are generalizations... but women, on average, are more interested in jobs like being elementary teachers where there is a really high degree of interaction with other people. Teaching also fits well with the lifestyle of some mothers who want a job that gives them the flexibility to be with the kids in the summer when their own kids are off school.
Both of those things, while not affecting the difficulty of the job, will drag down salaries by increasing the supply pool of people willing/wanting to do the job.
Look, the best way to look at it in my opinion is real simple. If they needed more teachers, they would pay more money. The fact that they don't pay more money means there are enough applicants to go around. Why would you expect the employer to pay more than they need to? That's just not the way it works.
Not sure if that was directed towards me or not (but I was quoted). However, I never said that my wife or I expected her employer to pay her more. She loves her job and hopes to spend the rest of her career right where she is at. Our entire budget is based around my income so as long as she is happy, her pay doesn't matter. I only said that I understand where some people come from because if Thanos snapped his fingers and I disappeared tomorrow there is no way that my wife would be able to support herself (and our kids) on her salary alone. This makes me wonder if life insurance pays out on death by "the snap." Don't know yet if this is covered in End Game or not.
The first part was a reply to you, the last part was just a hypothetical.
Your experience proves my point. The school can get away with paying her 30k, so it does. And that's okay for you guys because as a couple, you're fine.
A similar story I can share is that the previous owners of the house we bought spent 80k to renovate the garage into a yoga studio because the lady of the house wanted to start a yoga "business" out of the house. The $12 a pop she charged for her yoga sessions a couple times a week to 8 ladies a time barely paid for the utilities in that room let alone the cost of the renovations. Its not a business decision and its not a business with a reasonable expectation of profit. Its a lifestyle choice on her part.
That isn't the original argument presented by the OP. This is meant to be in addition to everything else everyone has said. Job security is one aspect to worry about, which is something most teachers used ti have. That is no longer the case in some states. Instead of discouraging people to come into the profession, there should at least be some perks to go along with the job. Being given $300 or so on supplies for an entire year is very, very low. Different counties/districts have different funding so some places are better off than most. There is no easy solution, but to state teachers being underpaid is a myth, as the argument is by OP, is something I am not buying.
I think this entire thread is a troll post anyway.
This is the guy that posted a kickstarter for a "non-biased" (very biased) news fact checker service which interestingly only had a couple backers but somehow was compelling enough for OP to advertise on a video game forum he barely posts on. I'm assuming this is connected with that project in some way.
Both of those things, while not affecting the difficulty of the job, will drag down salaries by increasing the supply pool of people willing/wanting to do the job.
Look, the best way to look at it in my opinion is real simple. If they needed more teachers, they would pay more money. The fact that they don't pay more money means there are enough applicants to go around. Why would you expect the employer to pay more than they need to? That's just not the way it works.
Well, a lot of schools are state run, and subject to budget issues that private businesses don't see (i.e., the politicians that vowed to cut taxes and education happened to be on the chopping block.) Indeed, many school districts can't hire enough teachers because they can't make wages attractive enough.
This is the guy that posted a kickstarter for a "non-biased" (very biased) news fact checker service which interestingly only had a couple backers but somehow was compelling enough for OP to advertise on a video game forum he barely posts on. I'm assuming this is connected with that project in some way.
Oh yeah, this is the guy who had the hardon for the Jussie Smollett story.
As a teacher, I can understand some of the points being addressed here. I am also curious as to the OP's occupation. The amount of time invested varies from teacher to teacher and discipline to discipline. Also, while I can't speak for everywhere, tenure is not what it used to be. While it did seem that at one time having tenure was a strong employment guarantee, that is not the case anymore. At least not where I'm located.
As has already been stated, the amount of time a teacher spends outside a classroom is significant. Meetings, conferences, events and beyond chew up a lot of time. Beyond that, many teachers spend time in their classrooms outside of their scheduled time regardless if they have a prep hour or not.
The hourly breakdown also doesn't take any of this into account.
On top of all of that, what is the $19/hr comparison made against? Other 4 year degrees? Jobs earned via certification? Apprenticeships? Blue collar work right out of high school or GED?
I would encourage anyone, including OP, who feels that teachers are overpaid to spend time, with the classroom limitations and state/federal mandates imposed upon educators today, and then evaluate the worth (be it financial or otherwise) of the teaching profession.
I always wanted to be a teacher at an elementary school. I consider it a worthwhile profession and one where I might be proud to say I have a (hopefully) positive effect on young peoples' lives.
That said, I'm not exactly running out to get educated, certified, and what have you, for a job that I would DEFINITELY consider to be underpaid and a LOT of work outside the job.
For reference, in my field (Web Development, Technology, Advertising) you can get a job with ZERO education (self-taught) and NO certifications. Be charismatic and show an eagerness to learn during the interview and you're likely to get an entry level position. That entry level position can get you the experience (which is all anyone cares about) for an eventual 6-digit job (give it ~5-10 years) where you spend the majority of some days looking at cats on Reddit.
I go home and I play video games and order in food from Uber Eats (most of the time). There's some crunch days/weeks, certainly, but for the most part it's a commonly accepted norm that much of my time is spent "thinking" about the work. And yes - it's absolutely true (sometimes I go to bed thinking about problems I need to solve and happily wake up with a new solution in mind like some sort of magic).
I can only imagine having to be in crunch mode 8-10 months of the year.
Stryphos, I think most everyone sees the value in the profession but we aren't talking about value, we are talking about price.
(When you pay for something, price is what you paid. Value is what you got).
I get it and that's why I said financial or otherwise. I am confident that many people on here likely do appreciate the teaching profession and I definitely wasn't taking any of this personally. Valuation for teachers comes in student respect, community appreciation, correspondence from past students on how you made a positive impact on their life, etc. I also imagine that I, like most others in the teaching profession, find a direct linkage between how much we're paid to how much we're valued.
Comments
Little real fallout? Last I did any research, most school systems hire new teachers on annual contracts. Meaning you have a job from the start to the end of the school your with NO guarantee for the year after. Meaning you can be let go for any number of reasons reguardless of your job performance. Just think about that for a second.
At least where I live once a teacher gets 3 years in the same district they get tenure. Once that happens they are pretty much bulletproof. The district would need to let go of every single person with less senority before the teacher with tenure could have their job eliminated. It can be a pain getting to those 3 years for sure, as they get dropped for no reason, but once there the job security is unreal.
There's another approach to compensation that reveals an imbalance that I think is felt in this thread (and in the working US in general) but it's hard to contextualize- the 2 parts to a job (intelligence and emotional intelligence) and the pay-rate imbalance between them.
Mechanical engineers, financial reporting managers, AVP of Application Support, are all technical jobs that fill a specific role in a project or the on-going maintenance of a project. Intelligence is high, emotional intel is low (it's an exaggeration- it's somewhere in the middle but weighted towards intelligence) A vast amount of these guys (at least that I've placed) aren't dynamic storytellers, some barely have command of the language, but can write some crazy efficient QA automation scripts.
Teachers, the intelligence is low and emotional intelligence is high (AGAIN it's an exaggeration- it's somewhere in the middle but weighted towards emotional intelligence). And before you trigger, you delicate flower, teachers are not stupid AT ALL, but their stated core job is repetition of a lesson plan (that they had to create- again, not stupid at all. That shit takes a LOT of work on the front end)- that job description doesn't include that heavily lifting of student interaction.
The standard tropes have been regurgitated again and again, even in this thread: it's so hard to be a teacher, so much time to do work with kids who don't want to learn, etc. We're talking emotional intelligence - navigating the wildly choppy waters of social interaction with the public (in this case a million different personality types) which, day-to-day, is draining and VERY hard to measure.
I believe the working world sees a set lesson plan gives their knee-jerk opinion: "well, all they have to do is stand up and talk." That's about 1/3rd true, the emotional intelligence necessary to deal with a dynamic school environment is immense. Since it's tough to measure EI, the people who work in hard numbers and metrics see teacher's pay as less worthy to their work, which usually has clear, set goals.
TLDNR: Folks who program computers have an easier way to determine their worth because they use intelligence, whilst teachers have a hard time getting more pay because their job difficulty is based on emotional intelligence.
Little real fallout? Last I did any research, most school systems hire new teachers on annual contracts. Meaning you have a job from the start to the end of the school your with NO guarantee for the year after. Meaning you can be let go for any number of reasons reguardless of your job performance. Just think about that for a second.
At least where I live once a teacher gets 3 years in the same district they get tenure. Once that happens they are pretty much bulletproof. The district would need to let go of every single person with less senority before the teacher with tenure could have their job eliminated. It can be a pain getting to those 3 years for sure, as they get dropped for no reason, but once there the job security is unreal.
Yes, they are doing away with tenure from what I heard in a lot of counties.
It's not always bad for teachers. It really depends where you work. The pensions where I live are ridiculous. Teachers retire in their 50s and then are making 6 figures in retirement because they get 80% of their highest year salary. Then they are long term subs and are getting paid well for it.
Edit: My wife was a teacher and worked a lot of hours, including extracurriculars she ran. However, she was shocked at the insane hours I work. Try leaving every day before your kids get up and getting home after midnight for two months straight in addition to coming home after dinner three other months of the year. Almost half of the year my wife is essentially a single parent because of my hours. There are careers with far worse hours than teachers.
Yes, and I respect the job, I'm sure it's not easy. That said, a doctor screws up, somebody dies. A defence lawyer screws up, somebody goes to jail. A teacher screws up what they grade something or a days lesson? Possibly a little embarrassment. Little real fallout. So I wouldn't say teachers are underpaid or overpaid on the face of it, but all I know about the job is what I've seen from friends.
Little real fallout? Last I did any research, most school systems hire new teachers on annual contracts. Meaning you have a job from the start to the end of the school your with NO guarantee for the year after. Meaning you can be let go for any number of reasons reguardless of your job performance. Just think about that for a second.
Im sorry but the fact that you think that's a big deal is difficult for me to process. A lot of jobs you can be there Monday screw up and be gone Tuesday.
Sorry, I forget you buy 100k paintings. Sorry for trying to explain the struggles some go through.
EDIT: I hope that didn't sound too dickish.
But what's the deal with the argument that teachers can be fired for any number of reasons? You mean, like 99% of all other jobs in the world? At least most teachers have contracts for any given year. That's way more than most people get.
Sounds like a person thats never been a teacher. GTFO of here with shit.
x2
/end thread
My wife is a teacher at a private school and makes well under $30k a year and spends well over $2k each year on supplies, so I understand where a lot of people are coming from.
But what's the deal with the argument that teachers can be fired for any number of reasons? You mean, like 99% of all other jobs in the world? At least most teachers have contracts for any given year. That's way more than most people get.
Annual contracts are just that, you are hired from "x" to "x". From what I know you can be released at any point in etween that range with little or no explanation given.
My wife is a teacher at a private school and makes well under $30k a year and spends well over $2k each year on supplies, so I understand where a lot of people are coming from.
That sucks and that does seem underpaid. I do think gender comes into it as well. I am going to generalize here so let's remember they are generalizations... but women, on average, are more interested in jobs like being elementary teachers where there is a really high degree of interaction with other people. Teaching also fits well with the lifestyle of some mothers who want a job that gives them the flexibility to be with the kids in the summer when their own kids are off school.
Both of those things, while not affecting the difficulty of the job, will drag down salaries by increasing the supply pool of people willing/wanting to do the job.
Look, the best way to look at it in my opinion is real simple. If they needed more teachers, they would pay more money. The fact that they don't pay more money means there are enough applicants to go around. Why would you expect the employer to pay more than they need to? That's just not the way it works.
My wife is a teacher at a private school and makes well under $30k a year and spends well over $2k each year on supplies, so I understand where a lot of people are coming from.
But what's the deal with the argument that teachers can be fired for any number of reasons? You mean, like 99% of all other jobs in the world? At least most teachers have contracts for any given year. That's way more than most people get.
Annual contracts are just that, you are hired from "x" to "x". From what I know you can be released at any point in etween that range with little or no explanation given.
Just like 99% of all other jobs in the world. Except that anyone with a contract typicall has a little more protection than someone without.
I'm on the side that says that MOST (certainly not all) teachers are under paid. But the argument that teachers have it worse than others because they may not have a job the following year doens't hold water.
My wife is a teacher at a private school and makes well under $30k a year and spends well over $2k each year on supplies, so I understand where a lot of people are coming from.
But what's the deal with the argument that teachers can be fired for any number of reasons? You mean, like 99% of all other jobs in the world? At least most teachers have contracts for any given year. That's way more than most people get.
Annual contracts are just that, you are hired from "x" to "x". From what I know you can be released at any point in etween that range with little or no explanation given.
Just like 99% of all other jobs in the world. Except that anyone with a contract typicall has a little more protection than someone without.
I'm on the side that says that MOST (certainly not all) teachers are under paid. But the argument that teachers have it worse than others because they may not have a job the following year doens't hold water.
That isn't the original argument presented by the OP. This is meant to be in addition to everything else everyone has said. Job security is one aspect to worry about, which is something most teachers used ti have. That is no longer the case in some states. Instead of discouraging people to come into the profession, there should at least be some perks to go along with the job. Being given $300 or so on supplies for an entire year is very, very low. Different counties/districts have different funding so some places are better off than most. There is no easy solution, but to state teachers being underpaid is a myth, as the argument is by OP, is something I am not buying.
My wife is a teacher at a private school and makes well under $30k a year and spends well over $2k each year on supplies, so I understand where a lot of people are coming from.
That sucks and that does seem underpaid. I do think gender comes into it as well. I am going to generalize here so let's remember they are generalizations... but women, on average, are more interested in jobs like being elementary teachers where there is a really high degree of interaction with other people. Teaching also fits well with the lifestyle of some mothers who want a job that gives them the flexibility to be with the kids in the summer when their own kids are off school.
Both of those things, while not affecting the difficulty of the job, will drag down salaries by increasing the supply pool of people willing/wanting to do the job.
Look, the best way to look at it in my opinion is real simple. If they needed more teachers, they would pay more money. The fact that they don't pay more money means there are enough applicants to go around. Why would you expect the employer to pay more than they need to? That's just not the way it works.
Not sure if that was directed towards me or not (but I was quoted). However, I never said that my wife or I expected her employer to pay her more. She loves her job and hopes to spend the rest of her career right where she is at. Our entire budget is based around my income so as long as she is happy, her pay doesn't matter. I only said that I understand where some people come from because if Thanos snapped his fingers and I disappeared tomorrow there is no way that my wife would be able to support herself (and our kids) on her salary alone. This makes me wonder if life insurance pays out on death by "the snap." Don't know yet if this is covered in End Game or not.
That isn't the original argument presented by the OP. This is meant to be in addition to everything else everyone has said. Job security is one aspect to worry about, which is something most teachers used ti have. That is no longer the case in some states. Instead of discouraging people to come into the profession, there should at least be some perks to go along with the job. Being given $300 or so on supplies for an entire year is very, very low. Different counties/districts have different funding so some places are better off than most. There is no easy solution, but to state teachers being underpaid is a myth, as the argument is by OP, is something I am not buying.
As I said, I don't disagree about teachers being underpaid. I think this entire thread is a troll post anyway. I just don't agree with the job security aspect because most teacher's jobs are safer for at least a year compared to most other workers.
My wife is a teacher at a private school and makes well under $30k a year and spends well over $2k each year on supplies, so I understand where a lot of people are coming from.
That sucks and that does seem underpaid. I do think gender comes into it as well. I am going to generalize here so let's remember they are generalizations... but women, on average, are more interested in jobs like being elementary teachers where there is a really high degree of interaction with other people. Teaching also fits well with the lifestyle of some mothers who want a job that gives them the flexibility to be with the kids in the summer when their own kids are off school.
Both of those things, while not affecting the difficulty of the job, will drag down salaries by increasing the supply pool of people willing/wanting to do the job.
Look, the best way to look at it in my opinion is real simple. If they needed more teachers, they would pay more money. The fact that they don't pay more money means there are enough applicants to go around. Why would you expect the employer to pay more than they need to? That's just not the way it works.
Not sure if that was directed towards me or not (but I was quoted). However, I never said that my wife or I expected her employer to pay her more. She loves her job and hopes to spend the rest of her career right where she is at. Our entire budget is based around my income so as long as she is happy, her pay doesn't matter. I only said that I understand where some people come from because if Thanos snapped his fingers and I disappeared tomorrow there is no way that my wife would be able to support herself (and our kids) on her salary alone. This makes me wonder if life insurance pays out on death by "the snap." Don't know yet if this is covered in End Game or not.
The first part was a reply to you, the last part was just a hypothetical.
Your experience proves my point. The school can get away with paying her 30k, so it does. And that's okay for you guys because as a couple, you're fine.
A similar story I can share is that the previous owners of the house we bought spent 80k to renovate the garage into a yoga studio because the lady of the house wanted to start a yoga "business" out of the house. The $12 a pop she charged for her yoga sessions a couple times a week to 8 ladies a time barely paid for the utilities in that room let alone the cost of the renovations. Its not a business decision and its not a business with a reasonable expectation of profit. Its a lifestyle choice on her part.
That isn't the original argument presented by the OP. This is meant to be in addition to everything else everyone has said. Job security is one aspect to worry about, which is something most teachers used ti have. That is no longer the case in some states. Instead of discouraging people to come into the profession, there should at least be some perks to go along with the job. Being given $300 or so on supplies for an entire year is very, very low. Different counties/districts have different funding so some places are better off than most. There is no easy solution, but to state teachers being underpaid is a myth, as the argument is by OP, is something I am not buying.
I think this entire thread is a troll post anyway.
Yeah I agree
Who's we? Is this like a blog post?
This is the guy that posted a kickstarter for a "non-biased" (very biased) news fact checker service which interestingly only had a couple backers but somehow was compelling enough for OP to advertise on a video game forum he barely posts on. I'm assuming this is connected with that project in some way.
Both of those things, while not affecting the difficulty of the job, will drag down salaries by increasing the supply pool of people willing/wanting to do the job.
Look, the best way to look at it in my opinion is real simple. If they needed more teachers, they would pay more money. The fact that they don't pay more money means there are enough applicants to go around. Why would you expect the employer to pay more than they need to? That's just not the way it works.
Well, a lot of schools are state run, and subject to budget issues that private businesses don't see (i.e., the politicians that vowed to cut taxes and education happened to be on the chopping block.) Indeed, many school districts can't hire enough teachers because they can't make wages attractive enough.
Who's we? Is this like a blog post?
This is the guy that posted a kickstarter for a "non-biased" (very biased) news fact checker service which interestingly only had a couple backers but somehow was compelling enough for OP to advertise on a video game forum he barely posts on. I'm assuming this is connected with that project in some way.
Oh yeah, this is the guy who had the hardon for the Jussie Smollett story.
As has already been stated, the amount of time a teacher spends outside a classroom is significant. Meetings, conferences, events and beyond chew up a lot of time. Beyond that, many teachers spend time in their classrooms outside of their scheduled time regardless if they have a prep hour or not.
The hourly breakdown also doesn't take any of this into account.
On top of all of that, what is the $19/hr comparison made against? Other 4 year degrees? Jobs earned via certification? Apprenticeships? Blue collar work right out of high school or GED?
I would encourage anyone, including OP, who feels that teachers are overpaid to spend time, with the classroom limitations and state/federal mandates imposed upon educators today, and then evaluate the worth (be it financial or otherwise) of the teaching profession.
That said, I'm not exactly running out to get educated, certified, and what have you, for a job that I would DEFINITELY consider to be underpaid and a LOT of work outside the job.
For reference, in my field (Web Development, Technology, Advertising) you can get a job with ZERO education (self-taught) and NO certifications. Be charismatic and show an eagerness to learn during the interview and you're likely to get an entry level position. That entry level position can get you the experience (which is all anyone cares about) for an eventual 6-digit job (give it ~5-10 years) where you spend the majority of some days looking at cats on Reddit.
I go home and I play video games and order in food from Uber Eats (most of the time). There's some crunch days/weeks, certainly, but for the most part it's a commonly accepted norm that much of my time is spent "thinking" about the work. And yes - it's absolutely true (sometimes I go to bed thinking about problems I need to solve and happily wake up with a new solution in mind like some sort of magic).
I can only imagine having to be in crunch mode 8-10 months of the year.
We're going to find out OP is some high school sophomore sitting in detention.
Teachers suck! HYEMPH!
We're going to find out OP is some high school sophomore sitting in detention.
Muahahah
(When you pay for something, price is what you paid. Value is what you got).
Stryphos, I think most everyone sees the value in the profession but we aren't talking about value, we are talking about price.
(When you pay for something, price is what you paid. Value is what you got).
I get it and that's why I said financial or otherwise. I am confident that many people on here likely do appreciate the teaching profession and I definitely wasn't taking any of this personally. Valuation for teachers comes in student respect, community appreciation, correspondence from past students on how you made a positive impact on their life, etc. I also imagine that I, like most others in the teaching profession, find a direct linkage between how much we're paid to how much we're valued.