NationStates Jolt Archive

Ive got a couple of good friends in the teaching profession.
One is a grade school teacher, and the other is a High School English teacher.
They dont make much, let me tell you.

My best friend has a younger sister, who is an EMT (Emergency Medical Techncian), ands she makes about 12 dollars an hour.
Thats about what I take in driving pizzas for a living.

My question is this:

In America, why do we pay sports celebrities outrageous sums, and our teachers, paramedics, police officers, firefighters, and paraprofessionals next to nothing?

The very idea that some musclebound asshole can get millions to play a damn game for a living, while the person educating tomorrows leaders, gets to barely make ends meet, is so damn wrong, it makes me sick.

The idea that a paramedic, who I may have to rely on for my survival, might be having trouble putting food on the table, and disgruntled about it, makes me nervous.

How did our system become like this?
Right and wrong have gone out the window, when it comes to providing an adequet living to crucial positions in society.

Personally, if I were in charge, Teachers would make about a six-figure salary.
However, tougher standards would also be required to become a teacher.
Furthermore, strict requirements for standardized testing would be enforced.
Students must pass state assessment tests, in order for said teacher, to keep his or her job.
A given number of failures would result in termination of the teachers job, and re-certification would be needed for that person to return to work.

What do you people think?

Do we pay such people enough, or is change in order?

I wish I wasn't so tired. This is one of my areas of study.

I'll give a short answer...our priorities are screwed, and we'll pay for it later. :p

Yes, change is needed. But you raise that point and people call you a Socialist...(unless you're in a college setting in which you're referred to as an economist :D )

I agree with most of what you said. It's absurd that teachers and medical professionals aren't the highest paid people in the country.

I do not object to paying professionals and othe such individuals large salaries, only intellectually challenged morons whose sole intention in life is to possess ther largest shiniest collection of jewellery they physically can, notably when they have all the musical talent of a collection of mice.

I agree with most of what you said. It's absurd that teachers and medical professionals aren't the highest paid people in the country.


A rookie cop can expect to make under 30,000 in his first few years.

Anyone ever tried to make a living, raising a family on thirty grand a year?
Aint easy, thats for sure.

I think these people should be making much more!

I want the guy who I call, when I need help, to absolutely love his job.

A rookie cop can expect to make under 30,000 in his first few years.

Anyone ever tried to make a living, raising a family on thirty grand a year?
Aint easy, thats for sure.

I think these people should be making much more!

I want the guy who I call, when I need help, to absolutely love his job.
I don't have a problem with giving the police more money. If it's a lot more money, though, it should be due to a system where we elect police officers.

I do not object to paying professionals and othe such individuals large salaries, only intellectually challenged morons whose sole intention in life is to possess ther largest shiniest collection of jewellery they physically can, notably when they have all the musical talent of a collection of mice.

Who are you referring to?

Who are you referring to?

50 cent, Jay z, anyone like that. I have a problem with sports stars earning £100,000 a week for kicking a football around a pitch as well, its absurd.

It's really simple.

Someone: Teachers, police, firefighters, EMTs all make shit. We need these people, we should make sure they get the money they deserve.

Public: YEAH!

Someone: So we're going to have to raise taxes slightly to pay for this.

PUBLIC: HELL NO!

Someone: But... weren't you just agreeing with me about these important people needing a raise to take care of our children, laws, property, and lives?

Public: That was before you said we'd have to pay an extra dollar in taxes.

Personally, if I were in charge, Teachers would make about a six-figure salary.
However, tougher standards would also be required to become a teacher.
Furthermore, strict requirements for standardized testing would be enforced.
Students must pass state assessment tests, in order for said teacher, to keep his or her job.
A given number of failures would result in termination of the teachers job, and re-certification would be needed for that person to return to work.
I disagree with this, as an educator, as standardized testing actually really doesn't accomplish much in terms of finding out where the children actually are and leads to... hmm, kids panicking, administrators cheating, and teachers teaching only the test and nothing else.

I agree that we teachers need to be held accontable, but standarized tests aren't the way to do so.

I don't have a problem with giving the police more money. If it's a lot more money, though, it should be due to a system where we elect police officers.


Electing a force of 100 or more police officers would take forever.
Imagine a bigger city, with multiple departments...

The answer would be to have a higher standard for becoming such an officer.
Weed out the less-capable cops....and keep the good ones.
Pay them a decent living wage.

I disagree with this, as an educator, as standardized testing actually really doesn't accomplish much in terms of finding out where the children actually are and leads to... hmm, kids panicking, administrators cheating, and teachers teaching only the test and nothing else.

I agree that we teachers need to be held accontable, but standarized tests aren't the way to do so.

So then, what system could be used, to make sure that children know what they need to, by a certain age, or grade, that could be applied to all schools, all over the country?

Furthermore, how could we assure our teachers are competent ones?
Not all teachers are good.
Weve all had crappy teachers, who cared little for actually motivating young people to learn, and simply read aloud from a text book.

Advice, please!

So then, what system could be used, to make sure that children know what they need to, by a certain age, or grade, that could be applied to all schools, all over the country?

Furthermore, how could we assure our teachers are competent ones?
Not all teachers are good.
Weve all had crappy teachers, who cared little for actually motivating young people to learn, and simply read aloud from a text book.

Advice, please!
That's the problem, most professional educators agree on the idea that a portfolio, both teaching and student, allows the best way to judge where a student is, if he or she has improved or not in the time period. A teaching portfolio, judged by profesional educators, administraors, and outside personel as to the abilities of the teacher in question, should also be put together from not only student work, but lesson plans, and video tape of classtime.

HOWEVER, such a system will take a lot of time and a lot of money and politicians and the public have a tendancy to balk at that. The solution, make all the kids take standarized tests that test about 3% of what is covered and don't actually show too much. :rolleyes:

So then, what system could be used, to make sure that children know what they need to, by a certain age, or grade, that could be applied to all schools, all over the country?

Furthermore, how could we assure our teachers are competent ones?
Not all teachers are good.
Weve all had crappy teachers, who cared little for actually motivating young people to learn, and simply read aloud from a text book.

Advice, please!

Posting inspectors to a school for a reasonable period would be viable and, to my mind, more effective, since it would negate the influence that standardized tests appear to have on British schools, facilitate a return to principally academic education,and ensure that teaching standards are upheld.

The solution, make all the kids take standarized tests that test about 3% of what is covered and don't actually show too much. :rolleyes:Not to mention that standardized tests measure what is average, and teachers spend a lot of time teaching students what's on them, therefore teachers are spending most of their time teaching their students to be average, instead of above average.

Not to mention that standardized tests measure what is average, and teachers spend a lot of time teaching students what's on them, therefore teachers are spending most of their time teaching their students to be average, instead of above average.
Unfortunately, yes. If a test that is going to say if I will get my money and keep my job only covers 3% of the material, do you really think I will spend a lot of time on the other 97%?

Hmm..what about grade-requirements then?

As in, by Grade 1, children must be able to verbally recognize and recreate the alphabet, or whathaveyou....(for example).

The higher the grade, the higher the requirements.
If a teacher has x number of students who fail, provided those students do not have learning disbilites, that teacher should come under review...

The idea is, to have better results from schools, and properly compensate such teachers for doing such an important job.

Not to mention that standardized tests measure what is average, and teachers spend a lot of time teaching students what's on them, therefore teachers are spending most of their time teaching their students to be average, instead of above average.

Quite true, I don't know how many of you have ever attended a British school, but in my Year 6, we passed the entirety of the year preparing for three, hour long standardized examinations, only for the majority of the class to attnd the local secondary school and find themselves,a nd their classmates, incapable of basic literacy skills (not me, however, I attended the most prestigious state school in the country,and am currently in its sixth form string, SCREW YOU MR.COLE! :) )

Hmm..what about grade-requirements then?

As in, by Grade 1, children must be able to verbally recognize and recreate the alphabet, or whathaveyou....(for example).

The higher the grade, the higher the requirements.
If a teacher has x number of students who fail, provided those students do not have learning disbilites, that teacher should come under review...

The idea is, to have better results from schools, and properly compensate such teachers for doing such an important job.
Which is actually already done. Every state that I am aware of has adopted standards for each grade and subject, and they are very, very complex.

It's how to determine if students are actually there that is the problem. (That, and who sets the standards?)

Ive got a couple of good friends in the teaching profession.
One is a grade school teacher, and the other is a High School English teacher.
They dont make much, let me tell you.

My best friend has a younger sister, who is an EMT (Emergency Medical Techncian), ands she makes about 12 dollars an hour.
Thats about what I take in driving pizzas for a living.

My question is this:

In America, why do we pay sports celebrities outrageous sums, and our teachers, paramedics, police officers, firefighters, and paraprofessionals next to nothing?

Uhhh. Teachers work 9 1/2 months of the year. They get paid in the neighborhood of 30k-70k depending on tenure. That’s decent wages.

Police Officers get paid 40-100k varying on rank and time in force and location. They also get virtually 100% retirement benefits.

Firefighters get paid 40-100k varying on rank and time in force. There's a reason why 'Firefighter, Chevy Corvette and a boat' is the stereotype.

paraprofessionals? Paramedics? Eh, yeah they're underpaid.

The very idea that some musclebound asshole can get millions to play a damn game for a living, while the person educating tomorrows leaders, gets to barely make ends meet, is so damn wrong, it makes me sick.

Not really. There any number of millions of people that can do the same job as that teacher. There are very few people who do the same thing as mister muscle head. People like watching games. We pay to watch them. As such the players get paid very well.

The idea that a paramedic, who I may have to rely on for my survival, might be having trouble putting food on the table, and disgruntled about it, makes me nervous.

True enough. The median is 32k a year for a paramedic. Which is rather sad.

How did our system become like this?
Right and wrong have gone out the window, when it comes to providing an adequet living to crucial positions in society.

Not at all. There are simply so many people able and capable to fill the crucial positions in question that there is zero reason to pay them well. Outside of the paramedics.

Personally, if I were in charge, Teachers would make about a six-figure salary.
However, tougher standards would also be required to become a teacher.
Furthermore, strict requirements for standardized testing would be enforced.
Students must pass state assessment tests, in order for said teacher, to keep his or her job.

A given number of failures would result in termination of the teachers job, and re-certification would be needed for that person to return to work.

What do you people think?

I think you're a rather crazy person. Teachers can't teach students who don't want to learn. All that'd do is increase the already occurring tendency for teachers to cheat for their students (filling in correct answers on the assessment tests for intense). Never mind that we teach to the tests too much already.

Do we pay such people enough, or is change in order?

For the most part this can stay roughly the same. Though I'll note for some reason you left out the Military. Where a good number of enlisted soldiers are getting less than 35k a year to get shot at. While most officers getting less than 40-50k for the same.

It's part of the consequences of a free-market capitalist society where the only regulation is silly tax incentives that, frankly, do absolutely nothing to set priorities where they belong. Money goes where more money can be made, and entertainment is what America's best at. Your politicians don't do anything either because they're simply incompetent figureheads trying to push moral agendas rather than seeking to defend the interests of the population, or because they realize there is nothing they can do to drive a free market; the very idea is a contradiction.

If there was a social reform movement with significant public support and capable leadership to oppose what can only be called entropy, you guys wouldn't be in so much trouble. Alas, you're going through a miniature dark age at the moment, but it'll pass soon enough.

Uhhh. Teachers work 9 1/2 months of the year. They get paid in the neighborhood of 30k-70k depending on tenure. That’s decent wages.
No, we do not work 9 1/2 months out of the year. We work the full 12, and then some. The 70k is a figure I would love to know what district pays that so I could move there.

Let me put it this way. With a BA, I would earn $28k during my first year as a teacher. With my MS, my pay rate jumps to $32k as a teacher, with a master degree. If I work very, very hard and long and stay in the same district, by the time I retire at 65ish, I would make $65k, with a master degree.

Right now, I am making $36k as an assistant teacher in Japan, a job that doesn't care if I have an MS or not.

Cmon none of you guys are seeing the big picture. Money isnt everything, it isnt even as important as the struggle to get money. Now some big idiot is 'livin the life of luxury', sittin on millions, right? The thing is, they dont have a clue on how to spend it. They buy furniture, and homes, but no amount of money can buy a rich and fuffiling life.
But those righteous individuals who want to save lives or teach as a living, aren't going to find it easy. Its going to be one thing after another to make the $ they want and deserve, and through that struggle comes a rich and fuffiling life.

Cmon none of you guys are seeing the big picture. Money isnt everything, it isnt even as important as the struggle to get money. Now some big idiot is 'livin the life of luxury', sittin on millions, right? The thing is, they dont have a clue on how to spend it. They buy furniture, and homes, but no amount of money can buy a rich and fuffiling life.
But those righteous individuals who want to save lives or teach as a living, aren't going to find it easy. Its going to be one thing after another to make the $ they want and deserve, and through that struggle comes a rich and fuffiling life.

I differ, YES IT BLOODY WELL IS!

So then, what system could be used, to make sure that children know what they need to, by a certain age, or grade, that could be applied to all schools, all over the country?

Furthermore, how could we assure our teachers are competent ones?
Not all teachers are good.
Weve all had crappy teachers, who cared little for actually motivating young people to learn, and simply read aloud from a text book.

Advice, please!

As a student we had two chemistry teachers, one after the other. This is a true story..
Mr. A, the first one, was brillaint. He loved his job, the class loved him, and he bribed us with practical lessons involving loud noises, and the accompanying flashes of light and heat.

This was an all-boys school, so we really liked this. As a result, we payed attention every lesson in case we'd get told we'd been good and earned a practical lesson. It worked because we respected him and he respected our need to make things go boom.

Then we had Mr. C. He was a teaching newbie. He worked on the principal that because we'd behaved nonperfectly in out first lesson, he'd tell us that we'd not get a practical next lesson. So we behaved like little sh*ts to give im the message that this was not how it worked. He got stressed out, smacked his holepunch on the desk and it was a downward spiral from there.


So we ot him so stressed he almost had a nervous breakdown and quit teaching for good.

Surprising a grammar school can be so cruel, but we had standards to meet.

So, sometimes the problem can sort itself and weed out teachers who aren't meant for the job.


But i heartilly agree. Execute david beckham to start with, then just get all the rappers and send them to the moon. It seems the attitude that goes with rap is the Chav attitude. For mericanns, this is the equation for chav.

Redneck + Jock + bling = Chav.

Then, take their assets and use them to improve the NHS. Take funding away from useless things like building stadiums and put in into the emergency services.

Voila! enough left over for a celebratory drink!

Cmon none of you guys are seeing the big picture. Money isnt everything, it isnt even as important as the struggle to get money. Now some big idiot is 'livin the life of luxury', sittin on millions, right? The thing is, they dont have a clue on how to spend it. They buy furniture, and homes, but no amount of money can buy a rich and fuffiling life.
But those righteous individuals who want to save lives or teach as a living, aren't going to find it easy. Its going to be one thing after another to make the $ they want and deserve, and through that struggle comes a rich and fuffiling life.
Jesh, you sound like one of my state legislators who suggested that teachers would show up to work even if they were not paid because we are just that dedicated to our students.

It's a fine idea, but in a little less than a year's time, I'm going to be getting married and that will (hopefully) lead to having a family. If I have to struggle over making enough money to feed my kids...

Um... Wooktop, I'm honored you've quoted me in your sig, but... could you spell my name right? ;)

No, we do not work 9 1/2 months out of the year. We work the full 12, and then some. The 70k is a figure I would love to know what district pays that so I could move there

:yawn: See my location? Notice that is has no affiliation with any sort of Emperor? Or that its not an island? Would my comments apply to you? Hmm. Nope. Though you've done an able demonstration of why, the entire world over, so many people can be teachers. Apparently basic reading comprehension skills aren't required.

Meh. Teachers' average starting salary is $46,000, usually with decent benefits, and of course 3 months off each summer, plus Christmas and spring break and 6-hour days. It's not a bad deal.

The reason we pay sports stars so much is because not many people can do what they do. Anyone can train to be a teacher or a cop or a fireman, but no matter how much I train, I'll never be Michael Jordan or Derek Jeter or whoever we're talking about.. maybe if I had started training at age 8, I could reach that level, but it's doubtful. Point is, they aren't average people, at least in their particular niche.

Edit: Before I get called a liar for whatever reason:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-06-25-teacher-salary-raise_x.htm

:yawn: See my location? Notice that is has no affiliation with any sort of Emperor? Or that its not an island? Would my comments apply to you? Hmm. Nope. Though you've done an able demonstration of why, the entire world over, so many people can be teachers. Apparently basic reading comprehension skills aren't required.
And evidently logical deduction is not one of yours, or else you may have noticed my posting about American school systems.

FYI, I'm an American. Actually, I'm your next door neighbor as I am from Nevada and my examples are from Nevada.

Maybe you should try some reading comprehension tests yourself, ne?

50 cent, Jay z, anyone like that. I have a problem with sports stars earning £100,000 a week for kicking a football around a pitch as well, its absurd. I had a dream last night, I think I tried to surreptitiously kill 50 Cent.

Yes, the priorities are fecked. However, if these payments are due to private industry, what can we do? I mean, footballers aren't payed for with taxes… are they?

I had a dream last night, I think I tried to surreptitiously kill 50 Cent.

Yes, the priorities are fecked. However, if these payments are due to private industry, what can we do? I mean, footballers aren't payed for with taxes… are they?

Given, we really ought to re-evaluate our priorities, however, could we envisage the government taxing individuals according to the percieved "value" of their vocation as well as their income?

Meh. Teachers' average starting salary is $46,000, usually with decent benefits, and of course 3 months off each summer, plus Christmas and spring break and 6-hour days. It's not a bad deal.
Ya need to re-read that, that is the average teacher's salary, not starting salary, meaning your mixing in teachers with decades of experiance along with new ones. New teacher salaries are much, much lower.

Also, teachers do not only work 9 months a year, YOU are in school 9 months a year (or were) teachers are there a lot longer doing work, lesson planning, prep, summer classes, and continuing education (teachers are required to attend classes, some states have made it manditory that teachers obtain so many college credits per year as well). And I WISH I had a 6 hour day. I just got done with a a week of putting in 12 hrs a day, no breaks, and weekend.

Trust me, we're working.

Ya need to re-read that, that is the average teacher's salary, not starting salary, meaning your mixing in teachers with decades of experiance along with new ones. New teacher salaries are much, much lower.

Also, teachers do not only work 9 months a year, YOU are in school 9 months a year (or were) teachers are there a lot longer doing work, lesson planning, prep, summer classes, and continuing education (teachers are required to attend classes, some states have made it manditory that teachers obtain so many college credits per year as well). And I WISH I had a 6 hour day. I just got done with a a week of putting in 12 hrs a day, no breaks, and weekend.

Trust me, we're working.

Aha, good catch on the number.. I figured they'd list the average to start.. that would've make more sense at least.

Maybe some teachers work in the off-season.. I guess I was thinking of professors.. they have all the perks. Both my parents are/were college professors, and they do crap in the summer.. in fact, they aren't even allowed to work summers more than one in three years in the CSU system, for example.. but anyhow, I can sympathize with the difficulties of teaching, since I teach English on-and-off, but I still don't see how the pay is so terrible, especially with an advanced degree, which is more-or-less necessary to earn any type of salary nowadays..
College life is a different kettle of fish, yup. ;)

As for the pay, it is low. Like I said, I earn more in Japan now than I would as a begining teacher with an advanced degree in Nevada.

Personally, as a single guy, $32k or $36k is a comfortable amount, but the idea of trying to support a family on that... Also, with Nevada's current scale, if I stay within the district, I might earn up to $65k when I retire, after 50 years of service and all that. Compaired to how much the average person with a master degree makes $53k to start...

My question is this:

In America, why do we pay sports celebrities outrageous sums, and our teachers, paramedics, police officers, firefighters, and paraprofessionals next to nothing?


The problem is that you are comparing two different sets of people.
The teachers, etc are generally government paid.
The sports celebrities are privately paid.

People get paid what their employer thinks they are worth. With that I mean that if paying that celeb $4 million a year will mean the owner of the label/team/whatever will make $5 million then that celeb is worth $4 million to that owner (and (s)he will probably be willing to raise the salary a bit if the celeb would go to another employer to see if the celeb would stay).

Now we get to a little problem. How much value does a firefighter add? A schoolteacher? A police officer?
We cannot know, at best we can make educated guesses. And that is where the government has a problem. Where a private enterprise has a vested interest to pay people what they are worth otherwise they lose them to other enterprises that pay more (by paying to little) or don't make a profit (by paying to much), a government does not have either incentive so ends up paying something but never knowing if it is not enough (what other gov were you planning to go to with your skills) or to much (who cares we can spend our way out).

Not really. There any number of millions of people that can do the same job as that teacher.

So how come nearly half of my graduating class dropped out after their first prac coz they couldn't handle teaching? How come another quarter failed their first prac, coz they weren't up to it?

but everyone can be a teacher with adequate training.

yeah sure. I'd love to see you try it.

I agree.

We had a debate in English class about this after we read a Satire piece where Teachers made Six-Sum salaries, went to film premiers and lived the life of the rich and famous. While 'celebrities' lived in small homes, and could barely make ends meet.

I think it's appaling that the people that really make a difference to Society are treated as something that's not important.

Reminds me of the Fireman stikes a little while ago.

It's all well and good to want teachers to get more, but they don't have 10s of thousands of people paying top dollar to watch them for a few hours, buy merchindise with their name on it and have sponsers pay them to wear their shit.

Sports people get more because the people give them more. It sucks, but its true.

I think part of why teachers are paid so little compared to other "professions" is the issue of professional responsibility. Experienced surgeons, for instance, are paid very well, not only because their job is difficult, but because they must take professional, personal responsibility for the results of their job.

If you go in for surgery, and the doctor makes a mistake and, say, nicks an artery they weren't supposed to and you suffer because of it, you can sue the shit out of them, have them stripped of their license and they end up having to sell their assets to pay the money you sued them for.

If you send your kid to school, and by the end of it, they end up a dumbass that knows nothing, the teachers cannot be held personally responsible. Which is probably fair enough, but there is very little professional, personal responsibility here.

Are teachers being exploited at the moment and should they be paid more? Yes. Should they be among the best paid individuals in society? No.

Personally, if I were in charge, Teachers would make about a six-figure salary.
However, tougher standards would also be required to become a teacher.
Furthermore, strict requirements for standardized testing would be enforced.
Students must pass state assessment tests, in order for said teacher, to keep his or her job.
A given number of failures would result in termination of the teachers job, and re-certification would be needed for that person to return to work.

What do you people think?

Do we pay such people enough, or is change in order?
Now firstly, I don't disagree with your premise that the people in our society who are important make fuck-all. In NZ, while teachers are fairly well-paid (at the top of the scale you're on close to twice the average wage), compared to other professions where you need to do 4 years of university study (eg lawyers), they get paid pretty crappy. Policemen get paid about the same as teachers, nurses less and where I was living the Fire Dept was volunteer! Like you're going to yell for a lawyer when your house is on fire... :rolleyes:



However...

There's lots of problems with what you suggest.

Big thing is: Schools aren't equal.

I was teaching at a school in NZ where the average gross wage for the student's parents was around $300NZ p/week (about $200US). And it was only that high cause of the Dairy farmers sending their kids to that school (Dairy Farmers gross annual incomes are close to $1mill - though only $60k p/year after all costs), which pushed the average up.
Something like 60% of the students either had only one parent, didn't live with their parents or lived with a parent who wasn't their natural parent (mostly step-fathers). Unemployment was well above the national average - and traditionally always had been. This caused alot of drug and gang related issues that would surface every so often in school. In one particularly bad month, there was a shooting at school, an arson attack on a toilet block and in one day 14 students were suspended for fighting or drug offences.

What this all meant was that they had lots of social issues/problems which had major detrimental effects on their learning.
Also, because of the general poverty in the region, resources were very stretched. The school couldn't ask the parents for any contribution, because we knew few could afford to give anything. For example, in the dept I taught we had 2 old computers - and this was in a school with nearly 900 students.

Compare this to the top schools in NZ, where upon enrolling the parents would be told their child had to have a laptop, and they would be given the minimum specs for it. This would be a top-end model, costing close to $3000. And it was expected (ie demanded) that they would upgrade at the start of each school year. This on top of up to $10 000 school fees per term.
Each classroom had wireless connection, so the students could log immediately into the internet. Also each classroom have all the latest gadgets (TV, DVD, screen projector etc). I had a whiteboard and usually would buy my own markers.
To give you an example of what these schools could expect from the parents, one particular school a few years ago asked for donations to buy some new rowing skiffs. within a couple of months they'd raised $500 000. All from donation.

Now, do you really think that a child in the first school has the same opportunities to learn as one in the second school? You really think a teenage boy who's living with his uncle* because his father's in prison for murdering his mother (true story - I taught him, really nice guy) is going to be in the same position to learn as one who goes to a school which costs his (let's say) Barrister parents close to $50k a year for him to attend? A school which demands and expects all students to take extra lessons before and after school as part of their enrolment agreement.

And do you think that if the first boy fails, it's the fault of the teacher who should be punished, while the second boy who passes means a bonus for the teacher. Bearing in mind also that at the top schools in NZ, to preserve their eliteness and top ranking for passes, they actively discourage - to the point of expelling - students from sitting exams who might potentially fail.




*The aunt was in prison for robbery.

How did our system become like this?
Capitalism.

Students must pass state assessment tests, in order for said teacher, to keep his or her job.
Assessment tests are a joke, as if the crap they teach in school wasn't useless enough for the most part.

[snip]


Sports stars and other celebrities make so much money because they generate so much money. It has nothing to do with our priorities like some have said, it has to do with the simple fact that these people are providing a service that a significant number of people are willing to pay for. They sell out stadiums and generate huge amounts of money in advertising. If you dont pass a significant amount of those earnings on to the players the earnings will stay in the pockets of the team owners and upper management instead. In the world of sports the players are the equivalent of the assembly line workers, they are near the bottom of the ladder in those organizations. Im glad at least in this one industry the people at the bottom who do all the actual work are paid as much as the upper management.

Now, I do think that teachers and some of the other more important civil servants need to be paid more, but its very difficult to come up with that money, schools are underfunded as it is (and no child left behind programs make it worse by making it possible to lose significant portions of that already deficient funding).

When it comes to police however, I have a different view. I believe they should be paid more, but I also believe that the standards for becoming a police officer need to be increased significantly. As it stands now, the police force attracts way too many unintelligent people not fit for college, let alone for a job where you are given the power to take away a person's rights. Police need to be paid more, but the bar also needs to be raised.

It's all well and good to want teachers to get more, but they don't have 10s of thousands of people paying top dollar to watch them for a few hours, buy merchindise with their name on it and have sponsers pay them to wear their shit.

Sports people get more because the people give them more. It sucks, but its true.
That'd be pretty weird if Saturday sports was replaced with 'Saturday Teachers'.
(Camera pans round a huge stadium packed with thousands of cheering fans).
Announcer: "Today we have Mr. Hodgson teaching differential calculus!"
(sounds of fans cheering wildly, holding up banners of 'Hodgy - yu rock!', with calculus sums written underneath. Some fans in school uniform)
Mr Hodgson comes into the stadium (stadium erupts in applause and cheers), he walks slowly to the middle of the field, stops and stares at the audience.
"Quiet! I said quiet! I'm not starting this lesson until I have some quiet in here! I'm prepared to wait until you're all quiet and if need be finish the lesson after the lunch bell has sounded. You boy! (points at a rowdy boisterous fellow in a far row with his mouth full) What's that in your mouth? No eating in class! You know this! You can spend this lunch time writing out lines 'I shall not eat in class'."
And so on.

Can't really see it catching on.

My question is this:

In America, why do we pay sports celebrities outrageous sums, and our teachers, paramedics, police officers, firefighters, and paraprofessionals next to nothing?
It's the law of supply and demand. It actually doesn't take all that much training to be a paramedic, nor is it very difficult to find people who want to take that training and become one. But there aren't many people who can avoid professional tacklers to intercept a pass, then run the ball almost 100 yards through more professional tacklers to a touchdown. People are willing to pay good money to see someone do this. Ergo, football team owners are willing to pay top dollar for the player who can do this, so they can charge advertisers for the privilege of having millions of people see the ads for their products/services.

Is this right? I personally don't think so, but what other options do we have? Pass laws to keep the pay of professional athletes artificially low? Pass laws to atrtificiallly raise the pay of paramedics? History has shown that neither of those options will work well; either people will find a way around them, or the artifically low or high pay will somehow adversely impact the market.

If you find an answer to this, please let me know! :)

I disagree with this, as an educator, as standardized testing actually really doesn't accomplish much in terms of finding out where the children actually are and leads to... hmm, kids panicking, administrators cheating, and teachers teaching only the test and nothing else.

I agree that we teachers need to be held accontable, but standarized tests aren't the way to do so.
I agree with you on this--I'm an educator too, but I'm on the receiving end of the system that standardized testing pumps out, and I have to repair the damage. It's not our teachers' fault--you guys are under tremendous to have kids pass these tests, you have too many kids in your classes, and you don't have the resourcews necessary to do the job well. When they get to me, however, they've learned process but not purpose--I teach college English--so while most of them know how to write sentences and paragraphs with some degree of competency, they don't know how to make an argument, because that's not covered by the standardized test.

As to the why teachers don't make a good living, it's partially tied up in the idea that teaching was considered a woman's job for a long time, and ostensibly, women weren't supporting families and so didn't need as much money. Even though that hasn't been the case for decades, the poorly-paid teacher meme has stuck.

Unless you have taught, or are very close to someone who teaches, you do not know what we do throughout the year, or even the day. I wish people who scoff at the "summers off" would spend one day with a teacher and see what its like.

They would never believe numbers like 9.5 months and 6.5 hours a day again.

• An analysis of weekly wage trends shows that teachers' wages have fallen behind those of other workers since 1996, with teachers' inflation-adjusted weekly wages rising just 0.8%, far less than the 12% weekly wage growth of other college graduates and of all workers.

• A comparison of teachers' weekly wages to those of other workers with similar education and experience shows that, since 1993, female teacher wages have fallen behind 13% and male teacher wages 12.5% (11.5% among all teachers). Since 1979 teacher wages relative to those of other similar workers have dropped 18.5% among women, 9.3% among men, and 13.1% among both combined.

• A comparison of teachers' wages to those of workers with comparable skill requirements, including accountants, reporters, registered nurses, computer programmers, clergy, personnel officers, and vocational counselors and inspectors, shows that teachers earned $116 less per week in 2002, a wage disadvantage of 12.2%. Because teachers worked more hours per week, the hourly wage disadvantage was an even larger 14.1%.

• Teachers' weekly wages have grown far more slowly than those for these comparable occupations; teacher wages have deteriorated about 14.8% since 1993 and by 12.0% since 1983 relative to comparable occupations.

http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm?id=1869

Just get rid of all Medicare, and we can pay for this. ;)

The Yankees should just stop paying A-Rod. The money he's making is obscene.

• A comparison of teachers' weekly wages to those of other workers with similar education and experience shows that, since 1993, female teacher wages have fallen behind 13% and male teacher wages 12.5% (11.5% among all teachers).
Not wanting to be a pedant here (ok yes I do), but if female teachers have dropped 13%, male teachers 12.5% then how does this average out to 11.5% for all teachers? Does this mean some teachers are neither male nor female?


Other than that, I agree with you. When I did my teacher training we were told a study showed the average hours for a teacher spent teaching, marking and preparing was close to 60 hours a week. A bit more than the 'you only work from 9 til 3 5 days a week!' that invariably gets chucked at teachers by people who should know better.

And some schools now enforce teachers to do extra study or teaching through their holidays. As you go up higher, there's a lot more work to do. My mother, who's in a senior position is lucky to be finished all her work by 10pm most nights. Then her school told her that she had to get more quals, as her teaching training was from too long ago. This meant finishing study at around midnight most weeknights and up at 6am to do more before school. A far cry from '9 til 3'.

And for those of you that say it's a question or supply and demand and less people can do sports than teach effectively. Do yourself an elightenment and go in and try to take a class of 14 year-olds in a poor inner-city school.

In America, why do we pay sports celebrities outrageous sums, and our teachers, paramedics, police officers, firefighters, and paraprofessionals next to nothing?
See all those "Angels", "Manchester United", and "Yankees" t-shirts?

Each time you buy something like that, or a ticket to a game, it's eventually going to trickle down into someone's paycheck. Someone like...a sports celebrity.

Supply and demand. The people like their sports, they pay to see it, the celebrities get money.

EDIT:

Now I was just told to go watch some kids in my school play basketball by the above post. Hmm.

So how come nearly half of my graduating class dropped out after their first prac coz they couldn't handle teaching? How come another quarter failed their first prac, coz they weren't up to it?

but everyone can be a teacher with adequate training.

yeah sure. I'd love to see you try it.





Cause that's what they said. Everyone can become a teacher. Absolutly everyone. They didn't say that many people can. Or that tens of thousands can. They said all. Every single person in world can become a teacher. Face it, more people can teach than can play professional sports. Plus, as has been mentioned, I'm not gonna pay $50 to watch a teacher do their jobs for 3 hours. But if 20,000 fans come out every night that someone works, and they all pay $50 to see that person do their job, that's $1,000,000(unless I'm doing my math wrong, which is possible since I'm fairly tired.) And that's in one night. So it's easy to see why a sports team can pay an athlete that much money. Once you get people to pay to watch you work, you'll make that much too.

WE arent paying professional athletes, club owners are. they decide to pay exhorbitant salaries to men and women at the top of their profession. when it no longer makes economic sense, they will stop raising salaries.

i suspect that new york city alone has more paid professionals (teachers, police, firefighters, emts) than all the professional athletes in the world. to pay them all at the levels of professional athletes would be impossible. every raise in pay for those jobs entails a cut in budget elsewhere or a raise in property taxes.

Teachers, medics, etc, etc, don't make lots of money because the public isn't pumping millions of dollars into their respective institutions. Sports 'stars' get paid ridiculous sums because it's a percentage, albeit small, of the income that is made by the corporation that owns them. I say that everything should be completely privatized, and we make everything a spectator sport (I'd like to see more contact-surgery, personally). It's because of how our society prioritizes it's issues. And don't tell me it's only the governments job to deal with apportioning towards issues, because as taxpayers, we share a responsibility as to where our money should go. Speak out about it, don't just complain. Contact your congressman or whatever and ask to let your voice be heard. Not enough people take responsibility for their actions because they assume that someone else will clean up their mess. Sorry for rambling, I'm just upset about the laziness of western society, though hipocritically (damn dirty laziness).

Teachers work 9 to 3? I would like to know what school goes 9 to 3. Schools around here are 7 to 3, and teachers are from 6:30 to 4, which does not include work you can not do in school. There is grading papers, getting new asinine qualifications that you don't need, writing tests, quizes, and lesson plans. God forbid you are special education.

If you don't like what pro athletes make, don't watch their games, don't buy their mechandice, and don't support the sponsors. Don't like what actors and musicians make? Don't buy or even boycott the products. That is how the free market works. If the money dries up, the salaries will come down.

In America, why do we pay sports celebrities outrageous sums, and our teachers, paramedics, police officers, firefighters, and paraprofessionals next to nothing?

The very idea that some musclebound asshole can get millions to play a damn game for a living, while the person educating tomorrows leaders, gets to barely make ends meet, is so damn wrong, it makes me sick.


Indeed, where would we be if all the teachers suddenly died? If all the pop singers died, we'd probably be better off.

That is simple to answer.

People will pay a lot to be entertained, but they don't want to pay very high taxes.

So, I'm starting my 2nd year of teaching in the Bay Area, and I'm making $41k with a Master's. I agree, that's not bad for a single person, although rents here are outrageous, I spend about 30% of that on rent/utilities. Plus all the school loans for 7 years of school....

I'm not sure how anyone can think "anyone" can become a teacher. Let's take California, since that's where my credential is. I've had to take 3 subject matter tests to teach Chemistry, and another 3 to teach Biology. In addition, I had to pass a basic english test (which everyone should pass :P). The subject matter tests however.... those are hard. I've known quite capable people that were talented teachers fail those on their first try. These are people that majored in the subjects as undergrads. I'd love to see "anybody" walk up and take those tests. Also, I spent close to $500 taking tests before I saw any money as a teacher. Let alone the $40k I've taken out in loans for schooling. Who is willing to spend that kind of money upfront with no return?

When I could make *more* than I currently do as a lab tech in a research lab or as a low level researcher, why do I bother to teach? I do it because I love it. And I don't have too many other obligations. But if I was at all concerned about money, the research jobs would start to look *real* good.

Other arguments... time wise. I teach from 8:30 to 3:30. I'm there, working, from 7:30 to 5pm. With clubs (I sponsor 3 as of this week) I can be there til 6 or 7. I've been known to leave school after 8 pm, over a 12 hour day. Most jobs you can leave your work at work. Teaching always seems to come home with me. :p

I won't talk about the quality of teaching I provide or my kids, because I work at one of the best schools in the country. I can't complain there. :D


Paying professionals more has to come from funding those professions more. And right now, everyone seems to fund things in a reactionary mode. Something bad is happening, throw money at it. There's crime, hire police officers. We had bad test scores, hire teachers. People need to realize changes that last can be made more effectively when they're proactive. :headbang:

In short: Supply, demand and review.

How many teachers are there? Thousands. You're a teacher and don't wanna work for the salary? There's the door, next one please.

He's not as good? Who cares, it's just kids and they don't vote and can't decide whether they like their teacher to keep his job.

Now let's look at pro-sports.

How many really good soccer players are there? Maybe a thousand, all over the world. And more important, you and a few thousand people SEE if he's good or not. He's on TV, every week, and if he stinks you just plain SEE it.

That's the difference. And yes, it sucks.

[QUOTE=BackwoodsSquatches]In America, why do we pay sports celebrities outrageous sums, and our teachers, paramedics, police officers, firefighters, and paraprofessionals next to nothing?

The very idea that some musclebound asshole can get millions to play a damn game for a living, while the person educating tomorrows leaders, gets to barely make ends meet, is so damn wrong, it makes me sick.[QUOTE]

Thats because you live in an aggressively free-market society, and think taxation is BAD AND WRONG. "No, i want my own money to do what i will with it. And what i will is...spend money on a season ticket to see aforementioned musclebound asshole".

I'd prefer the musclebound assholes to get the monies than the team owners mind you...

Just a bit of personal experience on the "everyone can be a teacher" idea...

I am studying to become a music teacher. Approximately 60 students began in the music education track my freshman year. Junior year, when you've applied and been accepted into the actual program, my class was down to 31. Three of those were grad students, and 6 are from the year ahead of us, who failed certain requirements and were held back by a year. 31 is also a huge number for that class, apparently, but not to worry. By the end of this semester, if past statistics hold true, the number of music education majors in my year will be approximately 15. With two semesters and student teaching yet to go. Typically, out of a starting group of about 60, we will graduate around 10.

School nurses should get a big raise too. This one (http://www.safetycenter.navy.mil/photo/images/photo130.jpg#caption) really helped me a lot last week.

WE arent paying professional athletes, club owners are. they decide to pay exhorbitant salaries to men and women at the top of their profession. when it no longer makes economic sense, they will stop raising salaries.

i suspect that new york city alone has more paid professionals (teachers, police, firefighters, emts) than all the professional athletes in the world. to pay them all at the levels of professional athletes would be impossible. every raise in pay for those jobs entails a cut in budget elsewhere or a raise in property taxes.
Well, if those clubs are playing their games in taxpayer financed stadiums, or if the teams are receiving tax breaks in order to stay in the city, or if, as is the case in New Orleans, the state is paying the team so it can "remain competitive" (which is a crock of shit, but don't get me started on that), then one can make the argument that WE are paying the salaries, at least in part. It's not completely true, since we're paying the owners far more than we're paying the players, and to be quite honest, I don't begrudge the players their salaries--I don't buy gear and I don't watch games on tv at home, and I don't buy products based on who they sponsor, so for me it's largely free, except for those public funds, and if I had my way, no public funds would ever be used anywhere for that kind of crap.

However...

There's lots of problems with what you suggest.

Big thing is: Schools aren't equal.

No, they sure arent. Private schools will always be ahead of public ones becuase they often have more money to spend on what they need.
My main concern is pay for teachers, higher qualifications for said, higher-paid teachers, and of course, as always, properly supplied schools.
The issue naturally, is the publics steadfast refusal to shell out a few dollars more a year for thier childs future.
Im looking for suggestions on how to change that.

I was teaching at a school in NZ (...snip....)

What this all meant was that they had lots of social issues/problems which had major detrimental effects on their learning.
Also, because of the general poverty in the region, resources were very stretched. The school couldn't ask the parents for any contribution, ...(more snipping..)

Compare this to the top schools in NZ, where upon enrolling the parents would be told their child had to have a laptop, and they would be given the minimum specs for it. This would be a top-end model, costing close to $3000. And it was expected (ie demanded) that they would upgrade at the start of each school year....(even more snipping...)

Now, do you really think that a child in the first school has the same opportunities to learn as one in the second school?

No I do not.
Wich is another of my concerns.
I know Im an idealist, but I think all schools should be given equal opportunities.
The issue, once again, is a money one.

Perhaps the solution is to open such schools to corporational support, in exchange for all the advertiseing they can throw at the children.
Now, Im not crazy about having Nike ads in classrooms, but if they give that school 100K a year to do it.....thats a lot of projector markers, isnt it?
Again , I dont have a solution, thats why I started this thread.



You really think a teenage boy who's living with his uncle* because his father's in prison for murdering his mother (true story - I taught him, really nice guy) is going to be in the same position to learn as one who goes to a school which costs his (let's say) Barrister parents close to $50k a year for him to attend? A school which demands and expects all students to take extra lessons before and after school as part of their enrolment agreement.

No, but both boys should have the same chances to succeed or fail.


And do you think that if the first boy fails, it's the fault of the teacher who should be punished, while the second boy who passes means a bonus for the teacher. Bearing in mind also that at the top schools in NZ, to preserve their eliteness and top ranking for passes, they actively discourage - to the point of expelling - students from sitting exams who might potentially fail.

Some children cannot be taught.
Some simply refuse to learn.
But those instances are fairly uncommon I believe, if not rare.

In reference to the idea of actions concerning a student failing a standardized test, one such occurance would mean little.
However, lets say this teacher had 15 students in a year period who failed such exams....might that not be a reflection of poor teaching abilities?







*

School nurses should get a big raise too. This one (http://www.safetycenter.navy.mil/photo/images/photo130.jpg#caption) really helped me a lot last week.

Pwned.

Perhaps the solution is to open such schools to corporational support, in exchange for all the advertiseing they can throw at the children.

You mean like in jennifer government? =)

Not wanting to be a pedant here (ok yes I do), but if female teachers have dropped 13%, male teachers 12.5% then how does this average out to 11.5% for all teachers? Does this mean some teachers are neither male nor female?

um, hrmmm... lol yeah that math doesnt really add up does it... lol.

Cause that's what they said. Everyone can become a teacher. Absolutly everyone. They didn't say that many people can. Or that tens of thousands can. They said all. Every single person in world can become a teacher.

There is a difference between becoming a teacher, and being a teacher. Look at how many teachers quit after their first year, or even during their first year. And believe me, I know a lot of people who would never be able to become a teacher... they would never survive student teaching.

I think we should tax the hell out of celebrites and take so much wealth that while they still make millions it isn't crazy like 100's of millions