$34.06 an Hour

[jmcrae]

Thanks for the edumucation. As I said in an earlier post, I am not particularly pro- or anti-union. In fact, I have never been part of a union - close, when I worked for hotels, but no cigar.

Now, I hear a lot of good things about unions, but I would like to understand why Teacher’s Unions are so lousy at job #1, negotiating salaries and benefits. At least, I assume they are lousy at it, because all I ever hear is complaints about teacher pay.

I would suspect that the reason for this is that the pool of money available for negotiation is small. Where I live, it’s the Provincial Government that decides how much money will be allocated for education, and if they say, five cents, then the union and the school board have to negotiate between themselves and decide how to spend that nickle, but they don’t get to tell the Government, “hey, we need more money!!” Well - they could, but it doesn’t actually change anything.

I’m guessing that it’s the state government that makes that decision, in the USA. So, if they have elected a conservative government, then there isn’t going to be a whole lot of money in the pot, to begin with.

 

[Jeffrey]

Teachers are definetly overpaid IMO.

tinyurl.com/yr4pmy

$34.06 an Hour
That’s how much the average public school teachers makes. Is that “underpaid”?

BY JAY P. GREENE AND MARCUS A. WINTERS
Friday, February 2, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST

Who, on average, is better paid–public school teachers or architects? How about teachers or economists? You might be surprised to learn that public school teachers are better paid than these and many other professionals. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, public school teachers earned $34.06 per hour in 2005, 36% more than the hourly wage of the average white-collar worker and 11% more than the average professional specialty or technical worker.

In the popular imagination, however, public school teachers are underpaid. “Salaries are too low. We all know that,” noted First Lady Laura Bush, expressing the consensus view. “We need to figure out a way to pay teachers more.” Indeed, our efforts to hire more teachers and raise their salaries account for the bulk of public school spending increases over the last four decades. During that time per-pupil spending, adjusted for inflation, has more than doubled; overall we now annually spend more than $500 billion on public education.

. . .

Evidence suggests that the way we pay teachers is more important than simply what they take home. Currently salaries are determined almost entirely by seniority–the number of years in the classroom–and the number of advanced degrees accumulated. Neither has much to do with student improvement. There is evidence that providing bonuses to teachers who improve the performance of their students does raise academic proficiency. With our colleagues at the University of Arkansas we found that a Little Rock program providing bonuses to teachers based on student gains on standardized tests substantially increased math proficiency. Researchers at the University of Florida recently found similar results in a nationwide evaluation.

 

[shirleytowers]

Regarding teachers unions:

If there hadn’t been a huge need for it, you never would have gotten teachers to organize. Teacher unionized because administrative abuses were so bad and teachers’ jobs so dependent on inappropriate factors. Maybe it is because in the US the teaching profession is mostly dominated by women and principals and administrators were mostly men, but there used to be big problems.

I am a dyed in the wool Republican, but I belong to my teacher union. I hate the lobbying aspect of it, but I know that if it weren’t for the union and the contract, the administration would have us teachers up at school at 5 AM scrubbing floors. I know good teachers would be fired.

I don’t join in union campaigning for political candidates except for school board. And I agree it needs to be easier to oust poor teachers.

 

[Thekla]

Thanks for the edumucation. As I said in an earlier post, I am not particularly pro- or anti-union. In fact, I have never been part of a union - close, when I worked for hotels, but no cigar.

Now, I hear a lot of good things about unions, but I would like to understand why Teacher’s Unions are so lousy at job #1, negotiating salaries and benefits. At least, I assume they are lousy at it, because all I ever hear is complaints about teacher pay.

Let’s say that I accept your premise. Not all states have the same laws concerning unions and not all unions are the same.

Anyways, teachers unions are “lousy” at negotiating salaries and benefits because they are negotiating with a School Board that is in charge of public tax dollars; a not-for-profit organization. If you were negotiating with a private company that made a profit, you would be able to show that the company was able to afford certain salary and benefit increases.

However, most educational systems generate the majority of their revenues from property taxes which are often capped. In my state, the School Board can increase the levy up to the CPI (Consumer Price Index) and no more than 6%. If the CPI is low in the previous year, say 2%, then that is the maximum increase that the Board can increase its levy by. So you may be trying to get a raise from a district that isn’t seeing much of a revenue increase. What’s the saying? You can’t squeeze blood out of a turnip. What the teachers’ union will do is look at the % of the budget that is not going towards classrooms. You may find a district office bursting at the seams with personnel or they may be squirreling money away in the maintence fund and not spending it.

As for benefits, everyone knows that the cost of health insurance is skyrocketing, and during negotiations the School Board is likely to ask teachers to pick up a portion of the increase. What you are more likely to see is an erosion in the coverage; ever higher co-pays, changing from PPO’s to HMO’s, less of a “kick-in” by the district for family coverage (which is through the roof.)

Also, unions like to maintain that they are not well paid as a negotiating tactic. Now new teachers are at the bottom of the salary schedule, but in my state the average teacher makes $56,000/year. If you are living in an area with a high average home price, many teachers are not able to work near where they live. But the same holds true for any public servant in those areas.

 

[rlg94086]

I would suspect that the reason for this is that the pool of money available for negotiation is small. Where I live, it’s the Provincial Government that decides how much money will be allocated for education, and if they say, five cents, then the union and the school board have to negotiate between themselves and decide how to spend that nickle, but they don’t get to tell the Government, “hey, we need more money!!” Well - they could, but it doesn’t actually change anything.

I’m guessing that it’s the state government that makes that decision, in the USA. So, if they have elected a conservative government, then there isn’t going to be a whole lot of money in the pot, to begin with.

Well, it’s an interesting guess, but that doesn’t explain the Bay Area, where I heard whining about teacher pay the loudest. It’s very liberal, as is most of the state of California.

I was hoping to see a response from Thekla, since she is a union officer in the U.S. I figure she might have good insight.

 

[shirleytowers]

The cost of living in the Bay Area is SKY HIGH. I can’t believe teachers can even afford to live there at all. It costs about $400k to buy a hovel halfway to Nevada.

 

[rlg94086]

Let’s say that I accept your premise. Not all states have the same laws concerning unions and not all unions are the same.

Anyways, teachers unions are “lousy” at negotiating salaries and benefits because they are negotiating with a School Board that is in charge of public tax dollars; a not-for-profit organization. If you were negotiating with a private company that made a profit, you would be able to show that the company was able to afford certain salary and benefit increases.

However, most educational systems generate the majority of their revenues from property taxes which are often capped. In my state, the School Board can increase the levy up to the CPI (Consumer Price Index) and no more than 6%. If the CPI is low in the previous year, say 2%, then that is the maximum increase that the Board can increase its levy by. So you may be trying to get a raise from a district that isn’t seeing much of a revenue increase. What’s the saying? You can’t squeeze blood out of a turnip. What the teachers’ union will do is look at the % of the budget that is not going towards classrooms. You may find a district office bursting at the seams with personnel or they may be squirreling money away in the maintence fund and not spending it.

As for benefits, everyone knows that the cost of health insurance is skyrocketing, and during negotiations the School Board is likely to ask teachers to pick up a portion of the increase. What you are more likely to see is an erosion in the coverage; ever higher co-pays, changing from PPO’s to HMO’s, less of a “kick-in” by the district for family coverage (which is through the roof.)

Thanks. I guess I don’t understand why, in my experience, the liberal cities and states are the ones with the most complaints about teacher pay. Why is that? I just left California - majority Democrat in the Legislature and Senate and , up until Arnie, Democrat governors for years. They even have a notoriously liberal judiciary. Yet, lots of complaints about teacher pay. Are they that ineffective that they can’t take care of one of their hottest issues when they have nearly complete control? Interesting…

 

[rlg94086]

Also, unions like to maintain that they are not well paid as a negotiating tactic. Now new teachers are at the bottom of the salary schedule, but in my state the average teacher makes $56,000/year. If you are living in an area with a high average home price, many teachers are not able to work near where they live. But the same holds true for any public servant in those areas.

Now, that is interesting! So, I guess we should all ignore them.

 

[rlg94086]

The cost of living in the Bay Area is SKY HIGH. I can’t believe teachers can even afford to live there at all. It costs about $400k to buy a hovel halfway to Nevada.

Yes. That’s why I left. I was renting a 30-year-old townhouse for $2k/month that would cost $750k to own. It wasn’t big enough for my family of six, and we couldn’t possibly afford the mortgage. Living in a hovel halfway to Nevada was out of the question.

Luckily, I negotiated with my new employer to live wherever I want in my territory (Western US). I know not everyone has that option, but there are teaching jobs in more affordable areas. If I were in that field, there is no way I would stay in California…unless my spouse made a good living in a different field.

 

[Thekla]

Thanks. I guess I don’t understand why, in my experience, the liberal cities and states are the ones with the most complaints about teacher pay. Why is that? I just left California - majority Democrat in the Legislature and Senate and , up until Arnie, Democrat governors for years. They even have a notoriously liberal judiciary. Yet, lots of complaints about teacher pay. Are they that ineffective that they can’t take care of one of their hottest issues when they have nearly complete control? Interesting…

The state really doesn’t have a lot to do with the salaries of teachers because the bargaining is between the local School Board and the local union. And the judiciary has nothing at all to do with it.

In large cities, they may have difficulty filling teaching positions, so what they do is “pad the base” in order to recruit new teachers. However, over time the salary increases are not there so those teachers often go looking for employment in the suburbs.

I’m familiar with the south, not the west, and I hear lots of complaints over salaries. If you take Florida, for example. Many of the over 55 communities are exempt from property taxes for the local school systems. I remember when Alabama was recruiting teachers from Florida because they were able to offer higher salaries. 48th and 50th were competing with one another.

The south is also filled with right-to-work states so there is no union strength.

 

[Thekla]

Now, that is interesting! So, I guess we should all ignore them.

Well not my union. But I’ve heard talk.

 

[harinkj]

And I agree it needs to be easier to oust poor teachers.

One problem I have seen with the civil service drones in administrations in government, i.e. NASA, DoD, is that they are inept at utilizing people. They want to fire the poor performer instead of trying to find out where the poor performer would perform better.

Corporations and government entities from school districts to federal departments live by job descriptions, regulations, and the annual review. A worker is brought in at an anual review and told that they are under performing and that they have to do certain steps to improve. Most administrators are too stupid to figure out what the person’s capabilities and motivations are and then mold a slot for them.

When I put together a group of scientists or engineers, I try to get a spectrum of people to cover what is needed and then observe the group and see who does what the best. In space radiation analysis for example, one person may really like to run the various physics computer programs that calculate particle transport, another person may prefer to see the overall picture, and a third may be the one that likes to write up the work at the end of the task.

So often when there are bad performers, the fault is the fool at the helm.

• Kathie :bowdown:

 

[Thekla]

BTW - What’s the purpose of “articles” such as these? Isn’t it really just propaganda in the war against public education?

Where’s the outrage about lawyers charging $250/hour? Oh that’s right. This article is not about salaries but about public education and trying to foster jealousy of those ruthless, overpaid public school teachers. That’s a continued tough road to hoe because everyone knows a teacher. It’s your mom or your dad or your brother or your wife or your neighbor. The overwhelming majority are hard-workers and they probably deserve more than they get.

 

[rlg94086]

Well, since the reason property taxes are capped in California is due to a state proposition passed years ago, I would say the state could very well do something about it.

The state really doesn’t have a lot to do with the salaries of teachers because the bargaining is between the local School Board and the local union. And the judiciary has nothing at all to do with it.

In large cities, they may have difficulty filling teaching positions, so what they do is “pad the base” in order to recruit new teachers. However, over time the salary increases are not there so those teachers often go looking for employment in the suburbs.

I’m familiar with the south, not the west, and I hear lots of complaints over salaries. If you take Florida, for example. Many of the over 55 communities are exempt from property taxes for the local school systems. I remember when Alabama was recruiting teachers from Florida because they were able to offer higher salaries. 48th and 50th were competing with one another.

The south is also filled with right-to-work states so there is no union strength.

 

[rlg94086]

Well not my union. But I’ve heard talk.

 

[system]

BTW - What’s the purpose of “articles” such as these? Isn’t it really just propaganda in the war against public education?

Where’s the outrage about lawyers charging $250/hour? Oh that’s right. This article is not about salaries but about public education and trying to foster jealousy of those ruthless, overpaid public school teachers. That’s a continued tough road to hoe because everyone knows a teacher. It’s your mom or your dad or your brother or your wife or your neighbor. The overwhelming majority are hard-workers and they probably deserve more than they get.

Well put.

Thanks!

:tiphat:

 

[shirleytowers]

There are several reasons California has issues with low teacher salaries.

One is that they passed a referendum some years back that prevents property and other local taxes from being raised without voter approval, and voters won’t approve the hikes needed for education, and

the other reason is that the cost of living is very high here.

Another thing to consider is that although some districts are unionized, others are not.

The state government gives the school districts a cost of living increase amount to add to teacher salaries every year, but the school districts tend to just keep it, and not pass it on! My district got 8% this year, but I haven’t seen a dime.

And yes, the governmental / union contract aspect of the whole scenario is what keeps bad teachers from being retrained or fired. Really, most “bad” teachers need better training and some help. Others just need to find another line of work.

 

[rlg94086]

There are several reasons California has issues with low teacher salaries.

One is that they passed a referendum some years back that prevents property and other local taxes from being raised without voter approval, and voters won’t approve the hikes needed for education, and

the other reason is that the cost of living is very high here.

Those two are very related. The primary cause of the high cost of living in California is the price of real estate. Because the majority liberal population is not in favor of raising their own property taxes (kind of ironic that they are for higher taxes nationally, eh?), the schools and such don’t benefit from the higher real estate prices.

shirleytowers:

Another thing to consider is that although some districts are unionized, others are not.

I didn’t know that…is that because the teachers didn’t want to be unionized?

shirleytowers:

The state government gives the school districts a cost of living increase amount to add to teacher salaries every year, but the school districts tend to just keep it, and not pass it on! My district got 8% this year, but I haven’t seen a dime.

That, I would blame on the union in the unionized districts. If they can’t negotiate an 8% increase based on the 8% increase in funding, they are really incompetent.

shirleytowers:

And yes, the governmental / union contract aspect of the whole scenario is what keeps bad teachers from being retrained or fired. Really, most “bad” teachers need better training and some help. Others just need to find another line of work.

Agreed.

 

[harinkj]

Because the majority liberal population is not in favor of raising their own property taxes (kind of ironic that they are for higher taxes nationally, eh?), the schools and such don’t benefit from the higher real estate prices.

I remember Proposition 13 which was the proposition which set the limits on property tax. This “liberal” comment is not true. It was a conservative led proposition. And there were many conservatives in California then. Two conservatives, Javris and Gann, lead the effort.
democracyctr.org/demaction/proposition13.html
Interestingly, I remember that policemen and firemen individually supported the proposition because they said that their own salaries and job security would not be affected. What greed. Also, it used to be that every election would have the propositions begin with number 1 and then go from there. The law was changed so that each election would have the numbering continue from the last election until 200 was reached. Then they would go back to begin at 1 again. Why did they enact this change? Because the tax limit people were worried that a repeal would be put on the ballot and it would be done to get the number 13 and all of the stupid people who were for the original tax limit would accidentally vote for the repeal.

Why was Proposition 13 passed? Actually the biggest beneficiaries were the very large land owners like the Southern Pacific Corporation. Now they didn’t have to pay much for property tax to support education.

The entire matter shows how stupid the voters can be. Whether they are conservative or liberal.

• Kathie :bowdown:

 

[harinkj]

By the way. The way the law is written. The property taxes can shoot up if the title changes on the house. So if you move into a neighborhood and buy a 3 bedroom home for $1,000,000 you will pay through the nose. The family next to you who bought their house years ago when it was $60,000 won’t pay much at all. By the way that $1,000,000 is not out of line for a typical tract house in Santa Barbara. Go to a real estate web site and see for yourself.

• Kathie :bowdown: