The average teacher makes 75k a year I was shocked their union was good enough to get them a 16 percent raise over the next 4 years. I think they're getting greedy now.
0
The average teacher makes 75k a year I was shocked their union was good enough to get them a 16 percent raise over the next 4 years. I think they're getting greedy now.
Two points on this: 1) The school board wants to judge a teacher solely on standardized testing. This is the main problem..If you have ever stepped in a classroom, you would realize how unfair this is. The test scores of your kids don't even give an idea of how good or bad a teacher you are.
2) The teachers union negotiated a raise and signed on for a raise which was taken away due to budget cuts, essentially spitting on a previously negotiated contract. I would strike too..
0
Two points on this: 1) The school board wants to judge a teacher solely on standardized testing. This is the main problem..If you have ever stepped in a classroom, you would realize how unfair this is. The test scores of your kids don't even give an idea of how good or bad a teacher you are.
2) The teachers union negotiated a raise and signed on for a raise which was taken away due to budget cuts, essentially spitting on a previously negotiated contract. I would strike too..
On you first point. Then what would be fair? I'm sure they're not putting the bar to high with the scores the way they are. How do you evaluate performance?
0
On you first point. Then what would be fair? I'm sure they're not putting the bar to high with the scores the way they are. How do you evaluate performance?
Teachers will always fight against ways to measure their classroom effectiveness. They don't want be evaluted by any quantifiable means, because that would expose the bad ones, who pay the lion's share of union dues.
And why does every one of those Chicago slackers look like a braying hippo?
0
Teachers will always fight against ways to measure their classroom effectiveness. They don't want be evaluted by any quantifiable means, because that would expose the bad ones, who pay the lion's share of union dues.
And why does every one of those Chicago slackers look like a braying hippo?
In Chicago-you absolutely can't have teacher pay tied in with with standardized test results of students. You've got certain schools & certain areas of the city with parents & children who work hard & take education seriously & other areas of the city where the parents don't care & neither do the kids. Good teachers who teach in the downtrodden areas of the city don't want their pay increases tied in with the standardized test scores of kids who only bother to show up for class once a week. It's an unfair pay increase policy based on the location of where they teach & that's why they're striking.
0
In Chicago-you absolutely can't have teacher pay tied in with with standardized test results of students. You've got certain schools & certain areas of the city with parents & children who work hard & take education seriously & other areas of the city where the parents don't care & neither do the kids. Good teachers who teach in the downtrodden areas of the city don't want their pay increases tied in with the standardized test scores of kids who only bother to show up for class once a week. It's an unfair pay increase policy based on the location of where they teach & that's why they're striking.
Maybe what they ought to do is fire all those grossly overpaid teachers. Then they can hire all new teachers at around 28K to 30K a years. (with no benefits, of course) Just think of the money that would be saved just in the first year alone. After all, honestly, how important is an education. It's not like teachers have any type of impact on the students lives.
0
Maybe what they ought to do is fire all those grossly overpaid teachers. Then they can hire all new teachers at around 28K to 30K a years. (with no benefits, of course) Just think of the money that would be saved just in the first year alone. After all, honestly, how important is an education. It's not like teachers have any type of impact on the students lives.
I wonder if the reason they are so hung up on evaluating based on standardized test scores (which I would agree is a pretty stupid baraometer stadning alone) because it's damn near impossible to get rid of any teacher on anything resembling a subjective basis? I recall what my school districts had to go through back in the day to get rid of a teacher, and it was probably a $75,000-$100,000 fight, and that's if they won.
0
I wonder if the reason they are so hung up on evaluating based on standardized test scores (which I would agree is a pretty stupid baraometer stadning alone) because it's damn near impossible to get rid of any teacher on anything resembling a subjective basis? I recall what my school districts had to go through back in the day to get rid of a teacher, and it was probably a $75,000-$100,000 fight, and that's if they won.
Teachers, by the way, are the worst, in terms of understanding how the real world works. They are endlessly told how valuable they are, how important the work they do is, and how under-apprecaited they are. BS. Most of them have never done anything else but teach, and go to "schools" where they "learn" how to teach. Many of them COULDN'T do anything else, or surely nothing else that would pay them half of what they make teaching. In many cases, the "annual" salary figure you see is only a fraction of what they really make if you project it out over 12 months, add in something resembling what the rest of us pay for health care, and factor in the pay they recevive in additional paid benefits. If the average base is $71,000 (and I'm not sure what the figure is here), then the typical 12-month adjusted take-home is probably something like $105,000. AND that doesn't count their medical, which I suspect they either pay nothing or very little for, and whatever contributions the disctrict makes to a retirement plan. We ran a couple of studies about 10 years ago that showed, on average and in the part of the world we live in, teachers made more money than between 70-80% of the populations they "served." We see around here district after district eliminating art programs, music programs, libraries/media, bands, trips, sports, etc. The money to pay the teachers has to come from somewhere. It's increasingly coming from what most of us typically thought of as "school."
0
Teachers, by the way, are the worst, in terms of understanding how the real world works. They are endlessly told how valuable they are, how important the work they do is, and how under-apprecaited they are. BS. Most of them have never done anything else but teach, and go to "schools" where they "learn" how to teach. Many of them COULDN'T do anything else, or surely nothing else that would pay them half of what they make teaching. In many cases, the "annual" salary figure you see is only a fraction of what they really make if you project it out over 12 months, add in something resembling what the rest of us pay for health care, and factor in the pay they recevive in additional paid benefits. If the average base is $71,000 (and I'm not sure what the figure is here), then the typical 12-month adjusted take-home is probably something like $105,000. AND that doesn't count their medical, which I suspect they either pay nothing or very little for, and whatever contributions the disctrict makes to a retirement plan. We ran a couple of studies about 10 years ago that showed, on average and in the part of the world we live in, teachers made more money than between 70-80% of the populations they "served." We see around here district after district eliminating art programs, music programs, libraries/media, bands, trips, sports, etc. The money to pay the teachers has to come from somewhere. It's increasingly coming from what most of us typically thought of as "school."
Teachers, by the way, are the worst, in terms of understanding how the real world works. They are endlessly told how valuable they are, how important the work they do is, and how under-apprecaited they are. BS. Most of them have never done anything else but teach, and go to "schools" where they "learn" how to teach. Many of them COULDN'T do anything else, or surely nothing else that would pay them half of what they make teaching. In many cases, the "annual" salary figure you see is only a fraction of what they really make if you project it out over 12 months, add in something resembling what the rest of us pay for health care, and factor in the pay they recevive in additional paid benefits. If the average base is $71,000 (and I'm not sure what the figure is here), then the typical 12-month adjusted take-home is probably something like $105,000. AND that doesn't count their medical, which I suspect they either pay nothing or very little for, and whatever contributions the disctrict makes to a retirement plan. We ran a couple of studies about 10 years ago that showed, on average and in the part of the world we live in, teachers made more money than between 70-80% of the populations they "served." We see around here district after district eliminating art programs, music programs, libraries/media, bands, trips, sports, etc. The money to pay the teachers has to come from somewhere. It's increasingly coming from what most of us typically thought of as "school."
Wow, I think teachers in general overvalue their worth, but you rediculously undervalue them. I don't even know where to start at where you're wrong in this post, but the post above this one you might be onto something.
0
Quote Originally Posted by MaineRoad:
Teachers, by the way, are the worst, in terms of understanding how the real world works. They are endlessly told how valuable they are, how important the work they do is, and how under-apprecaited they are. BS. Most of them have never done anything else but teach, and go to "schools" where they "learn" how to teach. Many of them COULDN'T do anything else, or surely nothing else that would pay them half of what they make teaching. In many cases, the "annual" salary figure you see is only a fraction of what they really make if you project it out over 12 months, add in something resembling what the rest of us pay for health care, and factor in the pay they recevive in additional paid benefits. If the average base is $71,000 (and I'm not sure what the figure is here), then the typical 12-month adjusted take-home is probably something like $105,000. AND that doesn't count their medical, which I suspect they either pay nothing or very little for, and whatever contributions the disctrict makes to a retirement plan. We ran a couple of studies about 10 years ago that showed, on average and in the part of the world we live in, teachers made more money than between 70-80% of the populations they "served." We see around here district after district eliminating art programs, music programs, libraries/media, bands, trips, sports, etc. The money to pay the teachers has to come from somewhere. It's increasingly coming from what most of us typically thought of as "school."
Wow, I think teachers in general overvalue their worth, but you rediculously undervalue them. I don't even know where to start at where you're wrong in this post, but the post above this one you might be onto something.
I think it is slightly unfair to be judged solely on what students do on standardized tests. Some kids just don't want to learn.
I think kids that improve their scores on standardized tests should be a bonus for teachers. They aren't punished if the students don't learn but are rewarded if they do. This would prove the teachers are getting through to the kids.
As far as getting rid of bad teachers: I think they should be tested on the subject matter they teach. If they can't pass that then they should lose their jobs.
0
I think it is slightly unfair to be judged solely on what students do on standardized tests. Some kids just don't want to learn.
I think kids that improve their scores on standardized tests should be a bonus for teachers. They aren't punished if the students don't learn but are rewarded if they do. This would prove the teachers are getting through to the kids.
As far as getting rid of bad teachers: I think they should be tested on the subject matter they teach. If they can't pass that then they should lose their jobs.
I think it is slightly unfair to be judged solely on what students do on standardized tests. Some kids just don't want to learn.
I think kids that improve their scores on standardized tests should be a bonus for teachers. They aren't punished if the students don't learn but are rewarded if they do. This would prove the teachers are getting through to the kids.
As far as getting rid of bad teachers: I think they should be tested on the subject matter they teach. If they can't pass that then they should lose their jobs.
I don't see how any of them would fail what they teach. You still need a degree to teach it's not like they let anyone off the streets become a teacher. I'm not saying it's hard to become a teacher, but you need some sort of intelligence. The teachers need to be held accountable, but I also think the kids need to be held accountable at some point as well. If you don't pass the bullshit test they give you then you don't go to the next grade plain and simple. You get two chances to pass the test if you don't pass then there goes your free education. Force the parents to pay for it. If they can't pay then end all federal and state aid to them. Maybe then the parents will give a shit and make their children learn.
0
Quote Originally Posted by canovsp:
I think it is slightly unfair to be judged solely on what students do on standardized tests. Some kids just don't want to learn.
I think kids that improve their scores on standardized tests should be a bonus for teachers. They aren't punished if the students don't learn but are rewarded if they do. This would prove the teachers are getting through to the kids.
As far as getting rid of bad teachers: I think they should be tested on the subject matter they teach. If they can't pass that then they should lose their jobs.
I don't see how any of them would fail what they teach. You still need a degree to teach it's not like they let anyone off the streets become a teacher. I'm not saying it's hard to become a teacher, but you need some sort of intelligence. The teachers need to be held accountable, but I also think the kids need to be held accountable at some point as well. If you don't pass the bullshit test they give you then you don't go to the next grade plain and simple. You get two chances to pass the test if you don't pass then there goes your free education. Force the parents to pay for it. If they can't pay then end all federal and state aid to them. Maybe then the parents will give a shit and make their children learn.
I don't see how any of them would fail what they teach. You still need a degree to teach it's not like they let anyone off the streets become a teacher. I'm not saying it's hard to become a teacher, but you need some sort of intelligence. The teachers need to be held accountable, but I also think the kids need to be held accountable at some point as well. If you don't pass the bullshit test they give you then you don't go to the next grade plain and simple. You get two chances to pass the test if you don't pass then there goes your free education. Force the parents to pay for it. If they can't pay then end all federal and state aid to them. Maybe then the parents will give a shit and make their children learn.
OMG!!!
Blasphemy and Heresy!!! BOTH!!! Holding children accountable for their grades!?!? Having parents partially accountable for the little blessings failures?!?!? Aren't teachers totally and wholly responsible for the grades students make??? How can any sane person in any way, shape or form think that the children or parents have any influence over the children's grades?!?!? Pure lunacy...
0
Quote Originally Posted by bill702:
I don't see how any of them would fail what they teach. You still need a degree to teach it's not like they let anyone off the streets become a teacher. I'm not saying it's hard to become a teacher, but you need some sort of intelligence. The teachers need to be held accountable, but I also think the kids need to be held accountable at some point as well. If you don't pass the bullshit test they give you then you don't go to the next grade plain and simple. You get two chances to pass the test if you don't pass then there goes your free education. Force the parents to pay for it. If they can't pay then end all federal and state aid to them. Maybe then the parents will give a shit and make their children learn.
OMG!!!
Blasphemy and Heresy!!! BOTH!!! Holding children accountable for their grades!?!? Having parents partially accountable for the little blessings failures?!?!? Aren't teachers totally and wholly responsible for the grades students make??? How can any sane person in any way, shape or form think that the children or parents have any influence over the children's grades?!?!? Pure lunacy...
When you figure out "where to start at" with regards to what I said that is incorrect, please let me know. Thanks.
1. There's not even the slightest chance that you can say the 71 k these teachers make can be projected to 105k take home pay if they worked the whole year. Also, 70k is definitely not the normal pay for a teacher in this country nor is it the average.
2. Their benefits aren't really that different to the "normal" job in America. The time off they get is really the only difference.
3. There's no way in hell do they make more then 70 percent of the people they "serve" unless of course they're teaching in the ghetto, but let's not forget there are schools in suburbia.
4. Can't hack it in the real world? Haha seriously? I got my bachelors in civil engineering, which is math intensive. To get certified to teach secondary math they needed to go as high as calculus 3. An algebra teacher had to take that just to get certified. I'm sorry, but to say someone who has taken more math then almost 90 percent of the population can't hack it in the real world is just foolish.
5. To teach in the state of Nevada you need a masters. I know it's not extremely hard to reach that, but in what other sector would a masters only be worth a job starting out at 45k a year and topping out in the 70k range in most places?
Lastly, there are some dumbass teachers don't get me wrong, but I wouldn't say that's the norm. I have talked to and got to known a lot of teachers in my short life and some of them were extremely smart and wasted their talents "serving" the punk ass kids that don't give a damn.Yes, they overvalue themselves at times and they might have taken the benefits of having the time off with their kids, but if you translate that to the private sector many would have made a lot more then they will ever get from teaching.
I think you were right in post 12 though. It seems damn near impossible to get rid of teachers on a subjective basis. I read a few cases where they were still paid waiting years for the process of firing to finish.
0
Quote Originally Posted by MaineRoad:
Bill,
When you figure out "where to start at" with regards to what I said that is incorrect, please let me know. Thanks.
1. There's not even the slightest chance that you can say the 71 k these teachers make can be projected to 105k take home pay if they worked the whole year. Also, 70k is definitely not the normal pay for a teacher in this country nor is it the average.
2. Their benefits aren't really that different to the "normal" job in America. The time off they get is really the only difference.
3. There's no way in hell do they make more then 70 percent of the people they "serve" unless of course they're teaching in the ghetto, but let's not forget there are schools in suburbia.
4. Can't hack it in the real world? Haha seriously? I got my bachelors in civil engineering, which is math intensive. To get certified to teach secondary math they needed to go as high as calculus 3. An algebra teacher had to take that just to get certified. I'm sorry, but to say someone who has taken more math then almost 90 percent of the population can't hack it in the real world is just foolish.
5. To teach in the state of Nevada you need a masters. I know it's not extremely hard to reach that, but in what other sector would a masters only be worth a job starting out at 45k a year and topping out in the 70k range in most places?
Lastly, there are some dumbass teachers don't get me wrong, but I wouldn't say that's the norm. I have talked to and got to known a lot of teachers in my short life and some of them were extremely smart and wasted their talents "serving" the punk ass kids that don't give a damn.Yes, they overvalue themselves at times and they might have taken the benefits of having the time off with their kids, but if you translate that to the private sector many would have made a lot more then they will ever get from teaching.
I think you were right in post 12 though. It seems damn near impossible to get rid of teachers on a subjective basis. I read a few cases where they were still paid waiting years for the process of firing to finish.
The average teacher makes 75k a year I was shocked their union was good enough to get them a 16 percent raise over the next 4 years. I think they're getting greedy now.
Get your facts right. It's 71K (which is closer to 70K)and that's the median salary, not the average salary.
Also, that salary is only attainable with a Master's degree which of course, is completely unsubsidized and is a huge chunk of a student's debt.
Know what your are talking about before you start throwing facts and figures around, or in your case fabrications...
0
Quote Originally Posted by bill702:
The average teacher makes 75k a year I was shocked their union was good enough to get them a 16 percent raise over the next 4 years. I think they're getting greedy now.
Get your facts right. It's 71K (which is closer to 70K)and that's the median salary, not the average salary.
Also, that salary is only attainable with a Master's degree which of course, is completely unsubsidized and is a huge chunk of a student's debt.
Know what your are talking about before you start throwing facts and figures around, or in your case fabrications...
Scal, stfu there aren't any white people picking on blacks why are you here? Sorry I'm not able to make it to a link on this tablet and it's $71,236 forgive me I went up a little bit because it's a nice round pretty number.
Scal, stfu there aren't any white people picking on blacks why are you here? Sorry I'm not able to make it to a link on this tablet and it's $71,236 forgive me I went up a little bit because it's a nice round pretty number.
Ooooh this one says it's 76k(which is closer to 75k) douche. I mistakenly thought Zimmerman was white as well. Here's a few rolling heads for ya as well since I know how much you enjoy them.
Ooooh this one says it's 76k(which is closer to 75k) douche. I mistakenly thought Zimmerman was white as well. Here's a few rolling heads for ya as well since I know how much you enjoy them.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
OMG!!!
Hot Forum Topics
