Why These 18 Oklahoma Teachers Are Quitting Their Jobs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

+1

The days of women doing heavy lifting and other invisible labor behind the scenes for little or no money are over.

Really? I think its just begun. The resurgence in the ridiculous pride of being a SAHM hasn't been seen at this levels since the pre-1980s women in the workforce movement.

Yes, it's easy for a person to believe that history didn't begin until they were born, but this belief is factually incorrect.

Here's Peggy Seeger singing "Gonna Be An Engineer": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IGVxBb5uYk

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. She wrote that in the 70s and women can be engineers now. Except some women seem to the think they can opt for low-level careers and get paid high salaries and/or opt out of the workforce completely but still think they can have their cake and eat it too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. She wrote that in the 70s and women can be engineers now. Except some women seem to the think they can opt for low-level careers and get paid high salaries and/or opt out of the workforce completely but still think they can have their cake and eat it too.

I don't understand. You're not arguing in favor of low salaries for teachers, are you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. She wrote that in the 70s and women can be engineers now. Except some women seem to the think they can opt for low-level careers and get paid high salaries and/or opt out of the workforce completely but still think they can have their cake and eat it too.

I don't understand. You're not arguing in favor of low salaries for teachers, are you?

My arguments in regards to teachers:

- Equal pay for equal work regardless of seniority or gender
- Better discretionary funding for supplies and increased school resources - i.e. each school should purchase $750/year in supplies for every classroom.
- Better school funding for activities and electives like Art/Languages/STEM classes

In a LCOL area I think a salary of $40,000 - $60,000, adjusted minus the 2-3 months of leave, they take is sufficient. In a HCOL area I think a salary of $60,000 - $85,000, adjusted minus the 2-3 months of leave they take, is sufficient.

If that doesn't work for you, get a degree in a different field.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. She wrote that in the 70s and women can be engineers now. Except some women seem to the think they can opt for low-level careers and get paid high salaries and/or opt out of the workforce completely but still think they can have their cake and eat it too.

I don't understand. You're not arguing in favor of low salaries for teachers, are you?

My arguments in regards to teachers:

- Equal pay for equal work regardless of seniority or gender
- Better discretionary funding for supplies and increased school resources - i.e. each school should purchase $750/year in supplies for every classroom.
- Better school funding for activities and electives like Art/Languages/STEM classes

In a LCOL area I think a salary of $40,000 - $60,000, adjusted minus the 2-3 months of leave, they take is sufficient. In a HCOL area I think a salary of $60,000 - $85,000, adjusted minus the 2-3 months of leave they take, is sufficient.

If that doesn't work for you, get a degree in a different field.

And this scale is based on ... what?

How much you value teachers' work?

How much you value education?

What you think women should be paid?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. She wrote that in the 70s and women can be engineers now. Except some women seem to the think they can opt for low-level careers and get paid high salaries and/or opt out of the workforce completely but still think they can have their cake and eat it too.

I don't understand. You're not arguing in favor of low salaries for teachers, are you?

My arguments in regards to teachers:

- Equal pay for equal work regardless of seniority or gender
- Better discretionary funding for supplies and increased school resources - i.e. each school should purchase $750/year in supplies for every classroom.
- Better school funding for activities and electives like Art/Languages/STEM classes

In a LCOL area I think a salary of $40,000 - $60,000, adjusted minus the 2-3 months of leave, they take is sufficient. In a HCOL area I think a salary of $60,000 - $85,000, adjusted minus the 2-3 months of leave they take, is sufficient.

If that doesn't work for you, get a degree in a different field.

Oh, ok, you are arguing in favor of low salaries for teachers. Why do you think low salaries for teachers are a good thing?

[Anonymous]

I feel like until they work 8 hours a day 2080 hours a year like others they just aren't going to get the respect or pay they deserve.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. She wrote that in the 70s and women can be engineers now. Except some women seem to the think they can opt for low-level careers and get paid high salaries and/or opt out of the workforce completely but still think they can have their cake and eat it too.

I don't understand. You're not arguing in favor of low salaries for teachers, are you?

My arguments in regards to teachers:

- Equal pay for equal work regardless of seniority or gender
- Better discretionary funding for supplies and increased school resources - i.e. each school should purchase $750/year in supplies for every classroom.
- Better school funding for activities and electives like Art/Languages/STEM classes

In a LCOL area I think a salary of $40,000 - $60,000, adjusted minus the 2-3 months of leave, they take is sufficient. In a HCOL area I think a salary of $60,000 - $85,000, adjusted minus the 2-3 months of leave they take, is sufficient.

If that doesn't work for you, get a degree in a different field.

The problem is that you're going to get fewer well educated people in the teaching field. I've been an educator for a long time--am now retired and working part-time as a school psychologist (began my career as a teacher). I agree with the PP who said that options were limited for women--even in the 60's. Basically, a woman with a college degree could be a teacher, nurse, secretary, or career military. A couple of my friends became attorneys. With so many options now, we're getting more teachers who aren't highly qualified; and it's very concerning to see them in a classroom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. She wrote that in the 70s and women can be engineers now. Except some women seem to the think they can opt for low-level careers and get paid high salaries and/or opt out of the workforce completely but still think they can have their cake and eat it too.

I don't understand. You're not arguing in favor of low salaries for teachers, are you?

My arguments in regards to teachers:

- Equal pay for equal work regardless of seniority or gender
- Better discretionary funding for supplies and increased school resources - i.e. each school should purchase $750/year in supplies for every classroom.
- Better school funding for activities and electives like Art/Languages/STEM classes

In a LCOL area I think a salary of $40,000 - $60,000, adjusted minus the 2-3 months of leave, they take is sufficient. In a HCOL area I think a salary of $60,000 - $85,000, adjusted minus the 2-3 months of leave they take, is sufficient.

If that doesn't work for you, get a degree in a different field.

Oh, ok, you are arguing in favor of low salaries for teachers. Why do you think low salaries for teachers are a good thing?

- 8 - 12 weeks of leave a year
- 5 - 6 hour mandated work days
- Non-specialized educational achievements (minus the one Chemistry teacher with an MSc)
- Repetitive job performance

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Oh, ok, you are arguing in favor of low salaries for teachers. Why do you think low salaries for teachers are a good thing?

- 8 - 12 weeks of leave a year
- 5 - 6 hour mandated work days
- Non-specialized educational achievements (minus the one Chemistry teacher with an MSc)
- Repetitive job performance

So you think that low salaries for teachers are a good thing because you have a low opinion of teaching.

Do you think that more well-qualified people might consider teaching as a career if teaching paid more, or is that not important to you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Oh, ok, you are arguing in favor of low salaries for teachers. Why do you think low salaries for teachers are a good thing?

- 8 - 12 weeks of leave a year
- 5 - 6 hour mandated work days
- Non-specialized educational achievements (minus the one Chemistry teacher with an MSc)
- Repetitive job performance

So you think that low salaries for teachers are a good thing because you have a low opinion of teaching.

Do you think that more well-qualified people might consider teaching as a career if teaching paid more, or is that not important to you?

No.

Well-qualified people want to be challenged. They also want to be rewarded. That's something the county boards across this country could never offer in sufficient remuneration.

Get the kids their local education then send them off to trade school or college or to work as the staff of the local business for experience. Rinse and repeat.

[Anonymous]

Some schools have the principal and other admin teach a class. And then they share the responsibilities of admin of the school. Would this help change the dialogue between teachers and admin?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Oh, ok, you are arguing in favor of low salaries for teachers. Why do you think low salaries for teachers are a good thing?

- 8 - 12 weeks of leave a year
- 5 - 6 hour mandated work days
- Non-specialized educational achievements (minus the one Chemistry teacher with an MSc)
- Repetitive job performance

So you think that low salaries for teachers are a good thing because you have a low opinion of teaching.

Do you think that more well-qualified people might consider teaching as a career if teaching paid more, or is that not important to you?

No.

Well-qualified people want to be challenged. They also want to be rewarded. That's something the county boards across this country could never offer in sufficient remuneration.

Get the kids their local education then send them off to trade school or college or to work as the staff of the local business for experience. Rinse and repeat.

It's not important to have well-qualified teachers. Gotcha.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. She wrote that in the 70s and women can be engineers now. Except some women seem to the think they can opt for low-level careers and get paid high salaries and/or opt out of the workforce completely but still think they can have their cake and eat it too.

I don't understand. You're not arguing in favor of low salaries for teachers, are you?

My arguments in regards to teachers:

- Equal pay for equal work regardless of seniority or gender
- Better discretionary funding for supplies and increased school resources - i.e. each school should purchase $750/year in supplies for every classroom.
- Better school funding for activities and electives like Art/Languages/STEM classes

In a LCOL area I think a salary of $40,000 - $60,000, adjusted minus the 2-3 months of leave, they take is sufficient. In a HCOL area I think a salary of $60,000 - $85,000, adjusted minus the 2-3 months of leave they take, is sufficient.

If that doesn't work for you, get a degree in a different field.

Oh, ok, you are arguing in favor of low salaries for teachers. Why do you think low salaries for teachers are a good thing?

- 8 - 12 weeks of leave a year
- 5 - 6 hour mandated work days
- Non-specialized educational achievements (minus the one Chemistry teacher with an MSc)
- Repetitive job performance

If you think teachers have 5-6 hours of mandated work hours per day, you are high on crack. Try 5-6 hours of face time with students daily AND another 5-6 hours per day of prepping, lesson planning, grading, meetings, emails, and way more. Idiot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Oh, ok, you are arguing in favor of low salaries for teachers. Why do you think low salaries for teachers are a good thing?

- 8 - 12 weeks of leave a year
- 5 - 6 hour mandated work days
- Non-specialized educational achievements (minus the one Chemistry teacher with an MSc)
- Repetitive job performance

So you think that low salaries for teachers are a good thing because you have a low opinion of teaching.

Do you think that more well-qualified people might consider teaching as a career if teaching paid more, or is that not important to you?

No.

Well-qualified people want to be challenged. They also want to be rewarded. That's something the county boards across this country could never offer in sufficient remuneration.

Get the kids their local education then send them off to trade school or college or to work as the staff of the local business for experience. Rinse and repeat.

It's not important to have well-qualified teachers. Gotcha.

Reducing your comments to simplistic petulance isn't going to win anyone over to your side. As exemplified well by a 9-day walkout that got the teachers exactly nothing.

Why don't you convince us why the students need higher paid teachers? The subject matter won't change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Reducing your comments to simplistic petulance isn't going to win anyone over to your side. As exemplified well by a 9-day walkout that got the teachers exactly nothing.

Why don't you convince us why the students need higher paid teachers? The subject matter won't change.

Are you referring to the one in West Virginia or the one in Oklahoma?

Why do patients need well-paid doctors? Medicine doesn't change. Why do clients need well-paid lawyers? The law doesn't change.