*fact

I don't think we should offer a higher starting salary. What we need is the potential to get a great salary if you excel. Almost EVERY type of job rewards based on merit. There is no reason why we can't do that with teachers. You have a formula...I'm pulling this out of the air, but

5 % test scores
10% teacher ratings
10% student ratings
10% principal observations and interactions with teacher
20% score on competency tests in your area of teaching. Are you truly smarter than a 4th grader? Great, take a test on all the areas 4th graders must master. If you are a math teacher, you take math tests.
10% senior colleague observations of your teacher
10% special education teachers rating you on how well you manage to create an inclusive environment
5% how often you volunteer to take on extra
5% former student and parent ratings of your teaching

and so forth....you get the point. Sure politics may affect some aspects, but it's not as black and white as some people make it out to be. You can find a way to merit pay and give bonuses.

Anonymous wrote:They do better than college professors. My university's retirement package is not nearly as generous. Many college professors work into their seventies for this reason.

Also, let's just dispense with the myth that every kindergarten teacher is actually a potential CEO, nuclear physicist, brain surgeon, etc. It's just not true. That's like saying that everyone who joins the postal service is doing us a huge favor since otherwise he would have gone to Harvard and majored in computer engineering. Enough is enough already. If someone is earning less as a teacher, it doesn't necessarily follow that they could have earned more as something else.

This is what's wrong with education in America. We don't expect our teachers to be exceptional, and in face expect them to be mediocre. My grandfather could have been a university professor, but didn't want to deal with the politics of academia and (gasp!) actually loved to teach.
He retired as a beloved language and drama high school teacher.

Sigh.

Anonymous wrote:

We need to reward talented teachers with more money.

Agree--except for the fly in the ointment: how do you determine the talented teachers? If it is just by test scores, you will never get good teachers in terrible neighborhoods.

You are putting the cart before the horse. How do you get more talented people to go into teaching? By paying teachers more money.

Anonymous wrote:

When I convert 10 months into weeks, I get at least 40 weeks.

Also, the teacher's salary is the teacher's salary -- unless the teacher supplements their income with a second job during winter, spring, and summer vacations. Yes, they get time off during winter, spring, and summer vacations. But time off doesn't pay the bills. The question isn't whether teachers get compensated what they deserve to get compensated, because few people gets compensated what they deserve to get compensated; that's not how compensation works. (If it were how compensation works, CEOs and lobbyists would be a whole lot less rich.) The question is whether the compensation is high enough to attract and retain highly-qualified people. What do you think is the answer to that question?

Hope you are not a math teacher. Please count the days on your contract. You do know that most people do not get Christmas vacation, all federal holidays, and a Spring break?

I'm not an anything teacher. I looked at the MCPS contract. As far as I can tell, teachers are classified as 10-month employees in MCPS. But maybe I misunderstood that. (I did not have to look at the MCPS contract to know that there is school on Columbus Day and Veterans Day, both of which are federal holidays.)

Now if you want to, you can get into an argument about how many hours a year teachers actually work, vs. how many hours a year other people actually work. But it's still irrelevant, since the question (which you have not answered) remains: is teacher compensation is high enough to attract and retain highly-qualified people?

Anonymous wrote:Outstanding teachers are underpaid. Mediocre teachers are overpaid. Average teachers are getting a decent pay for what they bring to the table, especially considering the benefits (still good) and the potential to make extra money over the summer. If the economy were better I'd say even the average teachers are underpaid, but given how few people get even cost of living raises these days and how poor benefits can be at other jobs and how most people work more than the 40 hour week, I think it's a decent pay...if you are average.

We need to reward talented teachers with more money.

+1

We need to reward talented teachers with more money.

Agree--except for the fly in the ointment: how do you determine the talented teachers? If it is just by test scores, you will never get good teachers in terrible neighborhoods.

Outstanding teachers are underpaid. Mediocre teachers are overpaid. Average teachers are getting a decent pay for what they bring to the table, especially considering the benefits (still good) and the potential to make extra money over the summer. If the economy were better I'd say even the average teachers are underpaid, but given how few people get even cost of living raises these days and how poor benefits can be at other jobs and how most people work more than the 40 hour week, I think it's a decent pay...if you are average.

We need to reward talented teachers with more money.

When I convert 10 months into weeks, I get at least 40 weeks.

Also, the teacher's salary is the teacher's salary -- unless the teacher supplements their income with a second job during winter, spring, and summer vacations. Yes, they get time off during winter, spring, and summer vacations. But time off doesn't pay the bills. The question isn't whether teachers get compensated what they deserve to get compensated, because few people gets compensated what they deserve to get compensated; that's not how compensation works. (If it were how compensation works, CEOs and lobbyists would be a whole lot less rich.) The question is whether the compensation is high enough to attract and retain highly-qualified people. What do you think is the answer to that question?

Hope you are not a math teacher. Please count the days on your contract. You do know that most people do not get Christmas vacation, all federal holidays, and a Spring break?

How many of you lawyers or doctors out there would be willing to trade places with an elementary school teacher? If you're not willing to do so, why not? And if everyone out there thinks that teachers are as important as lawyers, why aren't they paid as much or respected as much?

Anonymous wrote:And, once again, teachers work very, very hard--for less than 39 weeks/year.

When I convert 10 months into weeks, I get at least 40 weeks.

Also, the teacher's salary is the teacher's salary -- unless the teacher supplements their income with a second job during winter, spring, and summer vacations. Yes, they get time off during winter, spring, and summer vacations. But time off doesn't pay the bills. The question isn't whether teachers get compensated what they deserve to get compensated, because few people gets compensated what they deserve to get compensated; that's not how compensation works. (If it were how compensation works, CEOs and lobbyists would be a whole lot less rich.) The question is whether the compensation is high enough to attract and retain highly-qualified people. What do you think is the answer to that question?

Anonymous wrote:And, once again, teachers work very, very hard--for less than 39 weeks/year.

No. Teachers work more than 39 weeks per year. We finish AFTER the kids leave for the summer (meetings, prep for following year, clean up, in some cases pack-up rooms so a camp program can move in)...and we BEGIN before kids return to school (more meetings, prep, etc.)

And, once again, teachers work very, very hard--for less than 39 weeks/year.

Anonymous wrote:

I'm saying that teachers receive benefits that private sector doesn't and that must be considered as pay as well.

There was a teacher pp who said she wasn't paid for summers because they deduct off money from her check during the year. She doesn't even realize that her salary, 50K per year, pays her for summers. Was she expecting 50K for ten months then an additional two months cash on top of that?

Compensation, not pay. Compensation is wages/salary plus benefits.

Anonymous wrote:I make 37K a year, district is on a hiring freeze (and has been for years) so its unlikely to go up anytime soon.

Would you consider that underpaid?

What are your benefits and what will you get upon retirement?