Teachers' Income

It's commonly known that public school teachers in the US don't earn a lot of money. The definition of "not a lot" differs from person to person, but teaching is definitely not a career in which one gets rich. I believe it's not uncommon for a teacher to earn less than $50,000 a year. But how much should teachers earn?

(I got this idea from some random Facebook post, but it holds water, so don't simply dismiss it.)
Let's say that we paid teachers the way we'd pay babysitters, which is basically part of their job since they are responsible for the students in their classes during school or class hours. $5 an hour to watch a kid, watching 20 kids at a time, for 6 hours a day = $600 per day. There are an average of 180 school days in a year, so that would be $108,000 per year. Far below what is usually earned.

Even if you don't like that mathematical example, it cannot be argued that teachers hold a great responsibility; they are tasked with teaching our children, the future of the country. So why do they get paid as little as they do? And $50,000 is pretty small, for having to have a bachelor's degree, and a lot of teachers don't even earn that much. It probably takes most teachers the better part of a decade to pay off their student loans.

Teachers not only have a large responsibility, they also put in a lot of time. They spend about eight hours at the school, five days a week, which itself is a full-time job, but in addition they have to prepare for their classes and grade homework. It's like working a part-time job in addition to their full-time job and only getting the single paycheck.

So, why don't teachers earn more? Simply based on the time they put into their jobs, they are getting shafted, earning less than minimum wage per hour, and that doesn't incorporate the fact that they are greatly influencing a generation. Does America not like teachers? Is it not a respected career? Or do they honestly not deserve a good paycheck?

I see where you are getting this at and I am kinda glad you brought this up.

Well there are low income schools and high income schools.. the difference is that low income schools offer education inferior to the high income schools education...

if teachers decide to work in a normal school (Low income) than it is natural they won't get paid as much since the school doesn't have the necessary income to pay teachers to educate children on a higher level.

The higher the teachings the higher the pay.....

Why do private schools cost so much?
Because they offer education far more superior than public school and private students have a higher success chance of making it into a good college.

My teacher also talked to me about a few years back and told me the reason he cannot teach us more advanced stuff is that they can only teach students on a higher level if the school has more money.
He even joked about it saying: "We're gonna have to charge ya for money in case you wanna be successful." ( terrible joke by the way)

I am not sure if these are facts or not... if somebody knows the correct answer then post em up. :)

You see, I don't disagree with marginalizing the difference between private and public schools (although going to a private school does not guarantee an absolutely better education) however saying that a teacher should be paid based upon the amount of money their students bring to the school is ludicrous. Teachers in the US are not just paid by the effectiveness of their educational institution, they are also paid based upon the GPA of their class. This is more or less an incentive to make sure the teacher "does their best" when in reality test-score-based income should not be the source of success for teachers as it puts the onus on the teacher to massage the grades a little just to not get fired.

The issue at hand is that teachers in the United States have had their positions belittled by the No Child Left Behind act which ultimately makes it impossible for the students and parents to take responsibility for their academic success. Parents are focusing much too hard on the teacher to be the parent rather than the more traditional view which is (and pardon the expletive) "RAISE YOUR OWN DAMN KIDS" mentality.

I am sorry for pontificating a bit, my family is made up mainly of teachers (I am actually a computer technician) and I find that it is too easy for parents to find alternative parents to do their job for them.

For the record, I am public schooled. Canadian public schooled, but public schooled nonetheless.

Most, if not all, teachers nowadays need at least a Masters (Bachelors + Certification/Masters) to even be hired. They are definitely underpaid for what they do and this is absolutely ridiculous, considering that the US supposedly spends an average of about $10-11,000 per student! Where does all that money go? Not so much into teachers' pockets, I can tell you that.

Could be a kind of scam the system set up.....
People are starting to say that college is a scam.



Where does all the money go to?

It's all trickle down. For every dollar in taxes that that goes towards education 70 cents goes to Washington then it goes to the State, then the County then the school district then the actual school. Out of a dollar only 8 cents at the most goes to a school. Teachers take a low pay for high pensions and other benefits same as all government workers. Even though they only work part of the year and the school system in America is dismal.

I go to an "independent study highschool", so I don't experience these teachers myself, but my best friend does. he says that half the teachers don't really teach anything. he says it's because of a law that forbids teachers from being fired if they've been a teacher for 10 years. I don't know how true this is, but I've had multiple people confirm this.

As for their income, it does seem low. If these really are good teachers, then I think they should be paid more. The problem is, I question whether they are actually good teachers or not. even so, I agree with Nekohime...


I haven't seen the exact statistics, but this seems messed up

Personally I think the corporations have taken over the education system...
No not to manipulate children....
but to leave the teachers almost empty handed at end days work....

Since normally teachers would get highly paid ( considering they have achieved so much so it's fair to reward them with extra cash) they somehow get paid less.

I think the school have to pay taxes as well and since taxes are so high and been high for a long time... they have to pay the government back and leave teachers with less money, but if the teachers complain about less money they could quit but it would be tough to find another place to be a teacher at. So it's not the schools fault for not paying the teachers enough.. but it's the taxes they have to pay that leaves teachers with almost nothing otherwise schools could be shut down for financial reasons.

Now I am only guessing at this one so please no argument.

Schools are schools, but they still have to follow the procedures of financially maintaining their schools.

( some schools even shut down because of financial reasons)

My stats on student spending come from here: http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=66

That chart says it's about $10,297 per student. Of course, this is an average, and the richer school districts probably spend more, while poorer districts probably spend much less than that. In any case, we spend more on education than many other countries whose students outperform ours.

I am considering being a teacher myself and like you my family is made of teachers as well. Theres so many stories I've heard about parents being like jumbo-sized douchebags to teachers. Its really common to hear stories about how a kid failed a test or whatever, the parent(s) flip out and blame the teacher and totally miss the point that their kid just didnt do any homework or the kid may have found the material very difficult but tried their best.

The US system has been putting alot more emphasis on standardized test scores to both determine how smart kids are, how good of a job teachers do, and how to divide up funding for that school. Personally I feel a good teacher cant be evaluated using a standardized test. Its true that test scores have some reflection on the teacher but the students (in my experience) dont ever get a say in how good a teacher is, when they are the ones to know the teacher the best.



One of my old school districts didnt have great SAT and standardized test scores and when I moved to a district that had the number 5 and 6 schools in the state by SAT's and other tests the difference was almost night and day. There were more specialized classes offered and we had newer computers and better equipment in club rooms and whatnot. The teachers felt pretty much the same though. I would imagine if the money that didnt go to the government or teachers went to the school building and facility.

As for how much teachers should get paid. I dont want to just throw out some random number because I fear that if teachers get paid a too much some people will go into it for the money. On the other hand if I say a number too small then no one will be a teacher other than the people who really want it. I want teachers to make enough so they are not poor by current US standards (like alot of jokes imply). Id like to say make it so all teachers will no experience start at a salary that can easily the cover cost of living for the area where they work. I'm sorry I have no black and white formula for that.

Okay, the average teacher is paid $45,000 a year. That is not a tiny sum of money. Many college professors will even make over $60,000 a year. One has to consider that, aside from those who do summer school which for teachers is no more than extra month at best, only work nine months out of the year.

Aside from that, teachers have some of the best benefits of any career out there. All of the health benefits under the sun, all of the paid leave one could manage to conjure up, and teachers cannot be conscripted should it ever be reinstated. (I especially like that one.)

I mean it is one thing to say you get paid too little in a profession you are wedged into, but it hardly seems adequate for anyone in the United States to complain about getting paid too little when there are so many career opportunities. I'm not talking about how the job market is less than desirable right now, but the general idea that you aren't even remotely locked into a career. As a teacher, you know your average salary, and if you don't like it then you shouldn't become a teacher. That's when you hear, "I do it because I love kids." Great! Then do it for the kids, and stop saying you are underpaid. Unappreciated? Yeah, I'll give you that. Underpaid? No, you are not.

You know, since I want to be a teacher, I should care more about this, but I'm still about a decade away from getting a career, so I'll worry about it then.

As for right now, I truly have to wonder where in the hell my 11k worth was. I did not see it all four years of high school...

One thing needs to be clarified: the image of teachers working 2/3s of the year only 6.5 hours a day is a myth. Teachers who try to scrape by doing that are the ones who suck.

While it is self-reported data, one survey showed that teachers in VA worked an average of 52.8 hours per week during the school year. Another showed 51.5. If you want good teachers, you need people who are willing to work a larger number of hours during the school year than the standard 40/week work week. Most of the best teachers I know tell me they work 50-60 hours a week.

If we assume teachers get 12 extra weeks off for the summer, they work 52 hours a week for 40 weeks a year, for 2080 hours a year. If someone works 40 hours a week 52 weeks a year, they have worked that same 2080 hours a year. While this math is rough and probably slightly understates the amount time off teachers get per year compared to an average worker in another field, the statement "teachers only work 70% as many hours as everyone else" isn't really accurate, especially when you consider the good teachers, who will tend to put in more time than the lousy ones. There are probably some who scrape by with the minimum time commitments who aren't very effective, but is that who we want educating our children?

We also have to consider that teachers are usually required to be highly educated. Many states require teachers to earn a Masters degree within X years from when they begin teaching. Their pay should be compared to similar employees, not construction workers and UPS truck drivers.

Teacher pay also has significance beyond people bitching about what is "fair." It affects who will consider teaching. It is difficult to attract top college graduates in their field if the wages are much lower than their other options. This is why math and science are a big problem in schools than art. It's hard to earn tons of money with an art degree. If you have a degree in science or engineering, it is much easier to find alternatives that pay significantly more than teaching. Good, experienced teachers also leave over money. It's not terrible if you're living by yourself, but if you want to start a family and you are the sole income earner in your household, low teacher salaries may drive you into another field.

Still as Tsuyaru said, the vilification of teachers is probably an even bigger problem than salary. Much of education reform focuses on getting rid of stereotypical "bad" teachers, who are far less common than they make them out to be. Yes, there are teachers who are complete failures sitting in jobs, but most people who take up teaching have a desire to do well. Those that don't are often counseled out of the profession or leave of their own choice. It turns out it isn't that fun doing a job you suck at every day.

Now, teachers are being forced to go through more and more "Accountability" measures of dubious validity and are seeing more standardized testing dumped on their students. Likewise, movies like "Waiting for Superman" give the public the message that our schools wouldn't be so bad if only a huge portion of our teaching corps wasn't lazy entitled morons.

Economics research shows that people generally respond to being valued and respected in the workplace more than they do to money. If we did less to force punitive-seeming "accountability" measures on teachers at every turn in a witch-hunt for some mythical welfare-queen class of educator and did more to support teachers, acknowledged their value and reality of all the factors that go into education, and allowed them freedom to use innovative strategies to engage their students instead of piling on the standardized tests, our education system would probably get better without even spending another dime(in fact we'd save money since standardized tests are expensive).

That is a terrible attitude to have. What if we said that doctors and nurses shouldn't go into the medical field unless they wanted to help people? (There are a lot of people that become doctors and nurses simply for the pay.) Yes, we'd have better doctors and nurses, but they would be overworked and still unable to care for everyone. Part of the reason so many people get involved in the field of health care is because the jobs tend to pay well, and the jobs tend to pay well because it is a field that constantly needs more help. If the jobs didn't pay well, fewer people would enter the field, and you'd start seeing hospitals turning away people for lack of space or time.

Look now at the field of education - the jobs don't pay incredibly well; the stress rate is very high (especially when there are all sorts of things to worry about, such as what you can and cannot teach and if what you say or do will somehow offend a parent and potentially get you sued or fired); and it requires a lot of time, each and every day (their summers may be free, but teachers spend more than enough time doing their job during the school year to make up for it). It's no wonder that there aren't a ton of people wanting to become teachers. And that's part of the problem. The average class has at least 25 students (and it's not uncommon for a class to have more than 30). If two or three of those students are troublemakers, then the teacher is going to have a hard time simply lecturing to the class, let alone making sure that every student understands what is being taught. If more people were willing to become teachers, there could be smaller classes, which could lead to the teacher having an easier time reaching the students.

However, that brings up the issue of money. Like Legendary_Dollci said, some schools have more money than others. And running a school isn't exactly a way to make money. (Except when it comes to sports, but that's a different discussion. Maybe we'll get to it eventually though.) A school cannot hire more teachers because they don't have the budget for it; so who is to blame?

Getting away from politics and money for a moment, how does society feel about teachers? Do we see them as helpful and essential, or are they idiots that get paid to do nothing more than babysit? I think the perception of teachers, and teaching itself, is very important. Does society have the correct view of teachers, or do most people under/overestimate their importance?

Fine, I suppose many teachers "work" beyond what is thought of a typical forty-hour work week, but I'm not inclined to think that all of them do that as necessity. For example, I don't think all, if even many, have to go home and grade papers. I'm not trying to diminish that teaching is an arduous and dedicated job, but I do think people are being blinded into just how supposedly "blighted" teachers are now. Teachers are not immune to using union support to make themselves look the the victim anymore than other union members who get far less general respect than teachers, but I suppose that is for an entirely different discussion.
___________________________________________________________________________

As for that being a terrible attitude. That's your call. I don't think that's a terrible attitude. Pragmatic, maybe. But I certainly don't feel my opinion is wrong. Why would I have an opinion that I think is wrong or represents a bad attitude?

As for doctors. I think you are oversimplifying things by saying that many people enter the field of medicine just because it pays well. There is much more to it than that. Your Average-Joe doesn't wake up one morning and go, "Hmm, I need a high paying job. I'm going to medical school." Point being, not everyone is cut out to enter such a field. Do they do it for the money? Maybe, but certainly not all of them get through that field with such a half-assed work ethic. You have to have some kind of vested interest in the field to find yourself cut out for it. To say that people are doctors just because they are money-grubbers is far more of a "terrible attitude" than the one I hold.

Please keep arguing. Note their exorbitant benefits and amount of paid sick days. Compare their salaries to other jobs, and note the poverty line. Tenure is also an issue. 4 years and they can do anything short of smacking a kid.

He has based his argument off of the "$5 per hour per kid" figure. Find a hole in that. Compare it to other jobs that include a lot more stress and years of schooling.

Find articles about why teaching has become an overly cushy job and cite them.

Make the argument! I'm too tired! x.x

I'm not part of this increasingly huge number of members on Serious Discussion who believes every single individual thought has to be cited and backed up by every article I can find under the sun. This isn't my doctoral thesis, this is my opinion.

I'm free to formulate my own opinion based on my own believes regardless of whether not others agree based on citation I might find on the internet. You can take my opinion for face value or not. It doesn't matter to me.

I don't know how it is in US or other countries, but one thing for sure is the teacher's income in my country is pretty much fucked up. It's way too low.

http://cpnsindonesia.com/gaji-guru-tidak-tetap-di-mataram-rp250-000.html, google translate it if you want.

I mean, what the fuck? Only Rp 250.000 a month(roughly $25)? That is so freaking low man.

As a teacher, you might have a contractual 6.5 hour workday. In this workday, you might get 1 planning period of 45 minutes and a lunch, although it is not unlikely that you will have to supervise student lunch during your own lunch. In addition to the time you spend teaching, you need, at a minimum, to allow time for the following things:

-office hours/time to meet with students who need assistance or wish to discuss your class
-lesson planning(many schools even require teachers to submit written planning to the administration at regular intervals)
-creating/choosing assignments and assessments
-grading assignments and assessments

Now, if you are a 10 year veteran who teaches 6 sections of the same class, maybe you have reached a point where you can recycle the materials you have used in the past, know the book well, etc, and don't have to do much work outside your contract hours and can still manage to be decently effective. However, a teacher fitting this profile is treading water and is unlikely to become a better or more engaging teacher, or show much of an ability to adapt to the needs of the students. This is the equivalent of the guy in the office who has figured out how to complete his duties to an acceptable minimum of adequacy in as little time as possible, but will never been seen as a leader, someone with growth potential, or someone who might sniff a promotion due to a total lack of initiative.

However, most teachers I know teach more than one different class. They put in extra time with professional development and planning to try and improve their teaching. Even if they have found lessons that work, they still try and see if new ideas can make them work even better. Not to mention that extra responsibilities many take on like proctoring clubs and such often don't pay very much when compared against the amount of time required.

Value judgments absent, the consequence of your attitude is the promotion of the teacher I described earlier: the one who does the bare minimum to scrape by. This won't promote good teaching, just as it doesn't promote effective work in any field. However, many other fields are better at recognizing this, and supporting and rewarding those who make efforts to grow themselves with paid professional development, raises, and promotions. On the other hand, I know teachers who have had to use their vacation time and spend their own money to attend the state conference for education in their field. And even once you use these opportunities to better yourself, the only reward may be the satisfaction you personally receive from improving as a teacher. In fact, education reform seems to be going in the opposite direction. Many districts are doing away with extra pay that teachers once got for advanced degrees and National Board Certification.

If we want the best educators, we should incentivize and support those who are interested in putting in the extra time to continue to improve throughout their careers, not those who want to scrape by with the bare minimum.