Fall enrollment 2023 record

[allcat]

Boomer era thinking?

Ya, great discussion.

Yea, nobody that's been around a while can't speak with any wisdom. After all of you're over 50 you're probably a little addled.

[Cataholic]

Boomer era thinking?

Ya, great discussion.

Thanks for adding to the discussion. Attitudes like your clearly are the answer.

[DMMDCats]

No need to prattle on with me, let it go. Chat amongst yourselves.

Me, I’m gonna concentrate on my truck, and myself. Some things I CAN fix.

I cannot fix your bias.

[Cataholic]

No need to prattle on with me, let it go. Chat amongst yourselves.

Me, I’m gonna concentrate on my truck, and myself. Some things I CAN fix.

I cannot fix your bias.

Bias? WTF? I thought our education system was worth discussing. But thanks for your sharp input and wise ass retorts.

[John K]

Open enrollment has historically been the excuse for poor results but Montana's policy isn't unique and other states have better outcomes.

I've ranted about the Schooling Industrial Complex, of which universities are only one part, many times so I won't go any further down that rabbit hole. But I'll just say that high enrollment in a vacuum is not something to celebrate.

Yep. Far too many kids are shamed into attending college. Shame on our elitist educators...

Not just elitist educators, but a lot of people who don't apply any critical thought to something that's been beaten into their skulls for years. I have a brother who flipped his s**t when I told one of his sons you don't need to go college to earn a good living.

...and who - pray tell - beat that thought into their skulls? Yep.

Yeah. Those damn teachers with their $40,000/year salaries and their second jobs they work to pay rent. So elitist.

I do several hundred tax returns a year and teachers make significantly more than $40k per year. Even if a teacher was at $40k per year, that’s only for nine months, so it’s an equivalent $53k annualized.

Maybe in the more metro areas.

I randomly googled Twin Bridges and here's what I found. I'd bet a lot of other montana school districts are in the same boat.

School District 7 - Twin Bridges Salaries
Highest salary at School District 7 - Twin Bridges in year 2018 was $42,063. Number of employees at School District 7 - Twin Bridges in year 2018 was 18. Average annual salary was $19,206 and median salary was $15,166. School District 7 - Twin Bridges average salary is 59 percent lower than USA average and median salary is 65 percent lower than USA median.

Where did you find those numbers? I'm sorry, but I just don't believe teacher pay is that low anywhere in Montana. My ex-wife was making over $60,000 per year (which equates to $80,000 if she worked 12 months a year, instead of just 9) as a teacher in GF when we split up, and that was in 2008. I'm sure salaries are somewhat higher in GF than in TB, but not that much higher, and again, that was 15 years ago. Now, she had her Masters plus 30 additional credits, which is what she needed to top out on the pay scale, and she had been teaching 15 years already by then. Any teacher has the opportunity to make significantly more, it they pursue the additional education required for that, and they certainly have the opportunity to do it, without having to work during the summer. Plus they have a very good pension plan too, which is a thing of the distant past for most people working in the private sector.

The only way the average/median salary could possibly be that low, is if practically their entire staff was made up of very young teachers, with very few years of experience. I have a hard time believing that starting pay is even that low in most Montana school districts. My ex-wife started in 1993, and I believe her starting salary was in the low $20's, although I don't remember for sure, and that was 30 years ago.

[wbtfg]

Open enrollment has historically been the excuse for poor results but Montana's policy isn't unique and other states have better outcomes.

I've ranted about the Schooling Industrial Complex, of which universities are only one part, many times so I won't go any further down that rabbit hole. But I'll just say that high enrollment in a vacuum is not something to celebrate.

Yep. Far too many kids are shamed into attending college. Shame on our elitist educators...

Not just elitist educators, but a lot of people who don't apply any critical thought to something that's been beaten into their skulls for years. I have a brother who flipped his s**t when I told one of his sons you don't need to go college to earn a good living.

...and who - pray tell - beat that thought into their skulls? Yep.

Yeah. Those damn teachers with their $40,000/year salaries and their second jobs they work to pay rent. So elitist.

I do several hundred tax returns a year and teachers make significantly more than $40k per year. Even if a teacher was at $40k per year, that’s only for nine months, so it’s an equivalent $53k annualized.

Maybe in the more metro areas.

I randomly googled Twin Bridges and here's what I found. I'd bet a lot of other montana school districts are in the same boat.

School District 7 - Twin Bridges Salaries
Highest salary at School District 7 - Twin Bridges in year 2018 was $42,063. Number of employees at School District 7 - Twin Bridges in year 2018 was 18. Average annual salary was $19,206 and median salary was $15,166. School District 7 - Twin Bridges average salary is 59 percent lower than USA average and median salary is 65 percent lower than USA median.

Where did you find those numbers? I'm sorry, but I just don't believe teacher pay is that low anywhere in Montana. My ex-wife was making over $60,000 per year (which equates to $80,000 if she worked 12 months a year, instead of just 9) as a teacher in GF when we split up, and that was in 2008. I'm sure salaries are somewhat higher in GF than in TB, but not that much higher, and again, that was 15 years ago. Now, she had her Masters plus 30 additional credits, which is what she needed to top out on the pay scale, and she had been teaching 15 years already by then. Any teacher has the opportunity to make significantly more, it they pursue the additional education required for that, and they certainly have the opportunity to do it, without having to work during the summer. Plus they have a very good pension plan too, which is a thing of the distant past for most people working in the private sector.

The only way the average/median salary could possibly be that low, is if practically their entire staff was made up of very young teachers, with very few years of experience. I have a hard time believing that starting pay is even that low in most Montana school districts. My ex-wife started in 1993, and I believe her starting salary was in the low $20's, although I don't remember for sure, and that was 30 years ago.

Govsalaries.com

[Cataholic]

Open enrollment has historically been the excuse for poor results but Montana's policy isn't unique and other states have better outcomes.

I've ranted about the Schooling Industrial Complex, of which universities are only one part, many times so I won't go any further down that rabbit hole. But I'll just say that high enrollment in a vacuum is not something to celebrate.

Yep. Far too many kids are shamed into attending college. Shame on our elitist educators...

Not just elitist educators, but a lot of people who don't apply any critical thought to something that's been beaten into their skulls for years. I have a brother who flipped his s**t when I told one of his sons you don't need to go college to earn a good living.

...and who - pray tell - beat that thought into their skulls? Yep.

Yeah. Those damn teachers with their $40,000/year salaries and their second jobs they work to pay rent. So elitist.

I do several hundred tax returns a year and teachers make significantly more than $40k per year. Even if a teacher was at $40k per year, that’s only for nine months, so it’s an equivalent $53k annualized.

Maybe in the more metro areas.

I randomly googled Twin Bridges and here's what I found. I'd bet a lot of other montana school districts are in the same boat.

School District 7 - Twin Bridges Salaries
Highest salary at School District 7 - Twin Bridges in year 2018 was $42,063. Number of employees at School District 7 - Twin Bridges in year 2018 was 18. Average annual salary was $19,206 and median salary was $15,166. School District 7 - Twin Bridges average salary is 59 percent lower than USA average and median salary is 65 percent lower than USA median.

Where did you find those numbers? I'm sorry, but I just don't believe teacher pay is that low anywhere in Montana. My ex-wife was making over $60,000 per year (which equates to $80,000 if she worked 12 months a year, instead of just 9) as a teacher in GF when we split up, and that was in 2008. I'm sure salaries are somewhat higher in GF than in TB, but not that much higher, and again, that was 15 years ago. Now, she had her Masters plus 30 additional credits, which is what she needed to top out on the pay scale, and she had been teaching 15 years already by then. Any teacher has the opportunity to make significantly more, it they pursue the additional education required for that, and they certainly have the opportunity to do it, without having to work during the summer. Plus they have a very good pension plan too, which is a thing of the distant past for most people working in the private sector.

The only way the average/median salary could possibly be that low, is if practically their entire staff was made up of very young teachers, with very few years of experience. I have a hard time believing that starting pay is even that low in most Montana school districts. My ex-wife started in 1993, and I believe her starting salary was in the low $20's, although I don't remember for sure, and that was 30 years ago.

Govsalaries.com

It doesn’t list just teachers if I read that correctly. You might have the school custodian, bus driver, part time cook, etc all mixed in that.

[wbtfg]

Open enrollment has historically been the excuse for poor results but Montana's policy isn't unique and other states have better outcomes.

I've ranted about the Schooling Industrial Complex, of which universities are only one part, many times so I won't go any further down that rabbit hole. But I'll just say that high enrollment in a vacuum is not something to celebrate.

Yep. Far too many kids are shamed into attending college. Shame on our elitist educators...

Not just elitist educators, but a lot of people who don't apply any critical thought to something that's been beaten into their skulls for years. I have a brother who flipped his s**t when I told one of his sons you don't need to go college to earn a good living.

...and who - pray tell - beat that thought into their skulls? Yep.

Yeah. Those damn teachers with their $40,000/year salaries and their second jobs they work to pay rent. So elitist.

I do several hundred tax returns a year and teachers make significantly more than $40k per year. Even if a teacher was at $40k per year, that’s only for nine months, so it’s an equivalent $53k annualized.

Maybe in the more metro areas.

I randomly googled Twin Bridges and here's what I found. I'd bet a lot of other montana school districts are in the same boat.

School District 7 - Twin Bridges Salaries
Highest salary at School District 7 - Twin Bridges in year 2018 was $42,063. Number of employees at School District 7 - Twin Bridges in year 2018 was 18. Average annual salary was $19,206 and median salary was $15,166. School District 7 - Twin Bridges average salary is 59 percent lower than USA average and median salary is 65 percent lower than USA median.

Where did you find those numbers? I'm sorry, but I just don't believe teacher pay is that low anywhere in Montana. My ex-wife was making over $60,000 per year (which equates to $80,000 if she worked 12 months a year, instead of just 9) as a teacher in GF when we split up, and that was in 2008. I'm sure salaries are somewhat higher in GF than in TB, but not that much higher, and again, that was 15 years ago. Now, she had her Masters plus 30 additional credits, which is what she needed to top out on the pay scale, and she had been teaching 15 years already by then. Any teacher has the opportunity to make significantly more, it they pursue the additional education required for that, and they certainly have the opportunity to do it, without having to work during the summer. Plus they have a very good pension plan too, which is a thing of the distant past for most people working in the private sector.

The only way the average/median salary could possibly be that low, is if practically their entire staff was made up of very young teachers, with very few years of experience. I have a hard time believing that starting pay is even that low in most Montana school districts. My ex-wife started in 1993, and I believe her starting salary was in the low $20's, although I don't remember for sure, and that was 30 years ago.

Govsalaries.com

It doesn’t list just teachers if I read that correctly. You might have the school custodian, bus driver, part time cook, etc all mixed in that.

Maybe. Still, the highest salary was 42k/year. Which is similar to a fast food employee.

[Cataholic]

Yep. Far too many kids are shamed into attending college. Shame on our elitist educators...

Not just elitist educators, but a lot of people who don't apply any critical thought to something that's been beaten into their skulls for years. I have a brother who flipped his s**t when I told one of his sons you don't need to go college to earn a good living.

...and who - pray tell - beat that thought into their skulls? Yep.

Yeah. Those damn teachers with their $40,000/year salaries and their second jobs they work to pay rent. So elitist.

I do several hundred tax returns a year and teachers make significantly more than $40k per year. Even if a teacher was at $40k per year, that’s only for nine months, so it’s an equivalent $53k annualized.

Maybe in the more metro areas.

I randomly googled Twin Bridges and here's what I found. I'd bet a lot of other montana school districts are in the same boat.

School District 7 - Twin Bridges Salaries
Highest salary at School District 7 - Twin Bridges in year 2018 was $42,063. Number of employees at School District 7 - Twin Bridges in year 2018 was 18. Average annual salary was $19,206 and median salary was $15,166. School District 7 - Twin Bridges average salary is 59 percent lower than USA average and median salary is 65 percent lower than USA median.

Where did you find those numbers? I'm sorry, but I just don't believe teacher pay is that low anywhere in Montana. My ex-wife was making over $60,000 per year (which equates to $80,000 if she worked 12 months a year, instead of just 9) as a teacher in GF when we split up, and that was in 2008. I'm sure salaries are somewhat higher in GF than in TB, but not that much higher, and again, that was 15 years ago. Now, she had her Masters plus 30 additional credits, which is what she needed to top out on the pay scale, and she had been teaching 15 years already by then. Any teacher has the opportunity to make significantly more, it they pursue the additional education required for that, and they certainly have the opportunity to do it, without having to work during the summer. Plus they have a very good pension plan too, which is a thing of the distant past for most people working in the private sector.

The only way the average/median salary could possibly be that low, is if practically their entire staff was made up of very young teachers, with very few years of experience. I have a hard time believing that starting pay is even that low in most Montana school districts. My ex-wife started in 1993, and I believe her starting salary was in the low $20's, although I don't remember for sure, and that was 30 years ago.

Govsalaries.com

It doesn’t list just teachers if I read that correctly. You might have the school custodian, bus driver, part time cook, etc all mixed in that.

Maybe. Still, the highest salary was 42k/year. Which is similar to a fast food employee.

I was thinking about what you quoted and they said 18 employees. No way that is correct. They actually have some nice facilities at Twin. Absolutely no way they only had 18 employees. Their website currently lists 6 job openings. That would translate to only 12 people working with 33% of the positions vacant.

https://www.twinbridges.k12.mt.us/Distr ... yment.html

And looking at board minutes below, the elementary school principal makes $72,500 per year.

https://www.twinbridges.k12.mt.us/files ... s.docx.pdf

[DMMDCats]

No need to prattle on with me, let it go. Chat amongst yourselves.

Me, I’m gonna concentrate on my truck, and myself. Some things I CAN fix.

I cannot fix your bias.

Bias? WTF? I thought our education system was worth discussing. But thanks for your sharp input and wise ass retorts.

I disagreed with the assessment about boomer era thinking.

I did not say a word about the “education” discussion.

I didn’t see any educational value in that statement. I still don’t.

And you are welcome. Wise ass is always ready to assist.

Personal attacks every chance…

[allcat]

No need to prattle on with me, let it go. Chat amongst yourselves.

Me, I’m gonna concentrate on my truck, and myself. Some things I CAN fix.

I cannot fix your bias.

He thought he was out, and they drug him back in.

[Cataholic]

No need to prattle on with me, let it go. Chat amongst yourselves.

Me, I’m gonna concentrate on my truck, and myself. Some things I CAN fix.

I cannot fix your bias.

Bias? WTF? I thought our education system was worth discussing. But thanks for your sharp input and wise ass retorts.

I disagreed with the assessment about boomer era thinking.

I did not say a word about the “education” discussion.

I didn’t see any educational value in that statement. I still don’t.

And you are welcome. Wise ass is always ready to assist.

Personal attacks every chance…

Hmm. My interpretation was that you just called a bunch of posters biased with their boomer (dated ways) while we discussed some educational problems right now. I am sure there was attack on your part?? But hey, I am the bad guy for simply noting that you added nothing to the discussion and was simply being a wise ass, which you acknowledge. Just don’t comment next time if you don’t want to discuss.

[Cledus]

Where did you find those numbers? I'm sorry, but I just don't believe teacher pay is that low anywhere in Montana. My ex-wife was making over $60,000 per year (which equates to $80,000 if she worked 12 months a year, instead of just 9) as a teacher in GF when we split up, and that was in 2008. I'm sure salaries are somewhat higher in GF than in TB, but not that much higher, and again, that was 15 years ago. Now, she had her Masters plus 30 additional credits, which is what she needed to top out on the pay scale, and she had been teaching 15 years already by then. Any teacher has the opportunity to make significantly more, it they pursue the additional education required for that, and they certainly have the opportunity to do it, without having to work during the summer. Plus they have a very good pension plan too, which is a thing of the distant past for most people working in the private sector.

The only way the average/median salary could possibly be that low, is if practically their entire staff was made up of very young teachers, with very few years of experience. I have a hard time believing that starting pay is even that low in most Montana school districts. My ex-wife started in 1993, and I believe her starting salary was in the low $20's, although I don't remember for sure, and that was 30 years ago.

Govsalaries.com

I had the same skepticism as John K, but I figured it's not worth getting into since you seem dug in to this issue. Are you certain those are teachers, or just people whose W-2 said the employer was the school district? Full-time teachers or subs?

The lowest salary I've seen a teacher receive was a recent grad who started at $34k-ish. Plus, school district employees get a lot of benefits the rest of us can only dream of getting for ourselves. There is value in that since they didn't have to go buy it. So, just looking at cash compensation doesn't paint a complete picture. You don't believe one of the biggest and most powerful unions in the country is really just letting their members live in poverty and squalor, do you?

Teachers aren't anywhere close to getting juiced. But they're a sacred cow, so we're all required to just believe them because they say something.

[wbtfg]

Where did you find those numbers? I'm sorry, but I just don't believe teacher pay is that low anywhere in Montana. My ex-wife was making over $60,000 per year (which equates to $80,000 if she worked 12 months a year, instead of just 9) as a teacher in GF when we split up, and that was in 2008. I'm sure salaries are somewhat higher in GF than in TB, but not that much higher, and again, that was 15 years ago. Now, she had her Masters plus 30 additional credits, which is what she needed to top out on the pay scale, and she had been teaching 15 years already by then. Any teacher has the opportunity to make significantly more, it they pursue the additional education required for that, and they certainly have the opportunity to do it, without having to work during the summer. Plus they have a very good pension plan too, which is a thing of the distant past for most people working in the private sector.

The only way the average/median salary could possibly be that low, is if practically their entire staff was made up of very young teachers, with very few years of experience. I have a hard time believing that starting pay is even that low in most Montana school districts. My ex-wife started in 1993, and I believe her starting salary was in the low $20's, although I don't remember for sure, and that was 30 years ago.

Govsalaries.com

I had the same skepticism as John K, but I figured it's not worth getting into since you seem dug in to this issue. Are you certain those are teachers, or just people whose W-2 said the employer was the school district? Full-time teachers or subs?

The lowest salary I've seen a teacher receive was a recent grad who started at $34k-ish. Plus, school district employees get a lot of benefits the rest of us can only dream of getting for ourselves. There is value in that since they didn't have to go buy it. So, just looking at cash compensation doesn't paint a complete picture. You don't believe one of the biggest and most powerful unions in the country is really just letting their members live in poverty and squalor, do you?

Teachers aren't anywhere close to getting juiced. But they're a sacred cow, so we're all required to just believe them because they say something.

I literally did zero digging beyond a quick google search. So take it for what it's worth. You certainly don't have to believe it....that's fine with me.

[coloradocat]

Teacher compensation is set up in such a way that both sides can be right depending on what their argument is.

The salaries are low relative to many other professions and considering that they are responsible for educating the next generation, they should be valued more.

However, they only work 8-9 months of the year, get as much PTO/sick days on top of that as most industries get for 12 months of work, get a pension that is partially/largely funded by their employer and are still being able to contribute to a separate 401K-like retirement fund. Total career/lifetime compensation is not nearly as low as people are led to believe.

Raising the salary/compensation would be a nice gesture but I'm not sure it would have a significant impact on the quantity of teachers or the quality of the output. Teachers get run down over so many years dealing with kids and administrators more so than because they are making less than they would like. There is also a barrier to entry via the certification process so if someone with real-world skills wants to become a teacher they can't just walk into a classroom like they could in a college/university, they have to go back to school to work their way through the system of red tape.

Also, because nearly all teachers in government schools are unionized, the only motivation to surpass the minimum expectations (which decrease once you have tenure) is the satisfaction of helping kids, not career advancement. If you're going to get the same 2% annual raise whether your students can read or not, how would that impact your attitude over time?

Disillusionment is a bigger problem in K-12 than compensation in my opinion. Salaries are just easier for people to understand, so that's where the fight is.

[John K]

Teacher compensation is set up in such a way that both sides can be right depending on what their argument is.

The salaries are low relative to many other professions and considering that they are responsible for educating the next generation, they should be valued more.

However, they only work 8-9 months of the year, get as much PTO/sick days on top of that as most industries get for 12 months of work, get a pension that is partially/largely funded by their employer and are still being able to contribute to a separate 401K-like retirement fund. Total career/lifetime compensation is not nearly as low as people are led to believe.

Raising the salary/compensation would be a nice gesture but I'm not sure it would have a significant impact on the quantity of teachers or the quality of the output. Teachers get run down over so many years dealing with kids and administrators more so than because they are making less than they would like. There is also a barrier to entry via the certification process so if someone with real-world skills wants to become a teacher they can't just walk into a classroom like they could in a college/university, they have to go back to school to work their way through the system of red tape.

Also, because nearly all teachers in government schools are unionized, the only motivation to surpass the minimum expectations (which decrease once you have tenure) is the satisfaction of helping kids, not career advancement. If you're going to get the same 2% annual raise whether your students can read or not, how would that impact your attitude over time?

Disillusionment is a bigger problem in K-12 than compensation in my opinion. Salaries are just easier for people to understand, so that's where the fight is.

Plus, and this is no minor thing, don't forget about tenure. After three years, it's almost impossible to get fired, whether they do a great job or a crappy one, unless they do something really stupid. That kind of job security is a pretty good benefit, which is available in very few, if any, other career fields. Having been married to a teacher for 15 years, I know that most are very dedicated to their profession. However, I also know that there are virtually no consequences for those that aren't. But the whole idea that teachers as a group are grossly underpaid is a gigantic red herring. Most people buy into it though, because they've had that belief spoon fed to them for such a long time.

[coloradocat]

Teacher compensation is set up in such a way that both sides can be right depending on what their argument is.

The salaries are low relative to many other professions and considering that they are responsible for educating the next generation, they should be valued more.

However, they only work 8-9 months of the year, get as much PTO/sick days on top of that as most industries get for 12 months of work, get a pension that is partially/largely funded by their employer and are still being able to contribute to a separate 401K-like retirement fund. Total career/lifetime compensation is not nearly as low as people are led to believe.

Raising the salary/compensation would be a nice gesture but I'm not sure it would have a significant impact on the quantity of teachers or the quality of the output. Teachers get run down over so many years dealing with kids and administrators more so than because they are making less than they would like. There is also a barrier to entry via the certification process so if someone with real-world skills wants to become a teacher they can't just walk into a classroom like they could in a college/university, they have to go back to school to work their way through the system of red tape.

Also, because nearly all teachers in government schools are unionized, the only motivation to surpass the minimum expectations (which decrease once you have tenure) is the satisfaction of helping kids, not career advancement. If you're going to get the same 2% annual raise whether your students can read or not, how would that impact your attitude over time?

Disillusionment is a bigger problem in K-12 than compensation in my opinion. Salaries are just easier for people to understand, so that's where the fight is.

Plus, and this is no minor thing, don't forget about tenure. After three years, it's almost impossible to get fired, whether they do a great job or a crappy one, unless they do something really stupid. That kind of job security is a pretty good benefit, which is available in very few, if any, other career fields. Having been married to a teacher for 15 years, I know that most are very dedicated to their profession. However, I also know that there are virtually no consequences for those that aren't. But the whole idea that teachers as a group are grossly underpaid is a gigantic red herring. Most people buy into it though, because they've had that belief spoon fed to them for such a long time.

I briefly mentioned that. The worst teachers are in their first two years (inexperienced, in over their heads) or their last five years (just clocking in before they can retire and get paid almost as much to not work for the rest of their lives). Tenure may have some validity at the university level when it comes to pursuing unconventional, ground-breaking research, but I'm not sure what the value is for K-12.

There are definitely teachers that deserve to be paid more, as well as many others that shouldn't be in a classroom at all. To some degree that's just the nature of a union. It's designed for the greater good of the group, not the individual, and certainly not for the employer or customer.

[wbtfg]

Teacher compensation is set up in such a way that both sides can be right depending on what their argument is.

The salaries are low relative to many other professions and considering that they are responsible for educating the next generation, they should be valued more.

However, they only work 8-9 months of the year, get as much PTO/sick days on top of that as most industries get for 12 months of work, get a pension that is partially/largely funded by their employer and are still being able to contribute to a separate 401K-like retirement fund. Total career/lifetime compensation is not nearly as low as people are led to believe.

Raising the salary/compensation would be a nice gesture but I'm not sure it would have a significant impact on the quantity of teachers or the quality of the output. Teachers get run down over so many years dealing with kids and administrators more so than because they are making less than they would like. There is also a barrier to entry via the certification process so if someone with real-world skills wants to become a teacher they can't just walk into a classroom like they could in a college/university, they have to go back to school to work their way through the system of red tape.

Also, because nearly all teachers in government schools are unionized, the only motivation to surpass the minimum expectations (which decrease once you have tenure) is the satisfaction of helping kids, not career advancement. If you're going to get the same 2% annual raise whether your students can read or not, how would that impact your attitude over time?

Disillusionment is a bigger problem in K-12 than compensation in my opinion. Salaries are just easier for people to understand, so that's where the fight is.

Plus, and this is no minor thing, don't forget about tenure. After three years, it's almost impossible to get fired, whether they do a great job or a crappy one, unless they do something really stupid. That kind of job security is a pretty good benefit, which is available in very few, if any, other career fields. Having been married to a teacher for 15 years, I know that most are very dedicated to their profession. However, I also know that there are virtually no consequences for those that aren't. But the whole idea that teachers as a group are grossly underpaid is a gigantic red herring. Most people buy into it though, because they've had that belief spoon fed to them for such a long time.

I briefly mentioned that. The worst teachers are in their first two years (inexperienced, in over their heads) or their last five years (just clocking in before they can retire and get paid almost as much to not work for the rest of their lives). Tenure may have some validity at the university level when it comes to pursuing unconventional, ground-breaking research, but I'm not sure what the value is for K-12.

There are definitely teachers that deserve to be paid more, as well as many others that shouldn't be in a classroom at all. To some degree that's just the nature of a union. It's designed for the greater good of the group, not the individual, and certainly not for the employer or customer.

In my mind, I equate teachers to police officers. Both are paid by the tax payers. There are some really good ones who make our community a better place and deserve a huge salary. There are also those who aren't good at all.

[Cataholic]

Teacher compensation is set up in such a way that both sides can be right depending on what their argument is.

The salaries are low relative to many other professions and considering that they are responsible for educating the next generation, they should be valued more.

However, they only work 8-9 months of the year, get as much PTO/sick days on top of that as most industries get for 12 months of work, get a pension that is partially/largely funded by their employer and are still being able to contribute to a separate 401K-like retirement fund. Total career/lifetime compensation is not nearly as low as people are led to believe.

Raising the salary/compensation would be a nice gesture but I'm not sure it would have a significant impact on the quantity of teachers or the quality of the output. Teachers get run down over so many years dealing with kids and administrators more so than because they are making less than they would like. There is also a barrier to entry via the certification process so if someone with real-world skills wants to become a teacher they can't just walk into a classroom like they could in a college/university, they have to go back to school to work their way through the system of red tape.

Also, because nearly all teachers in government schools are unionized, the only motivation to surpass the minimum expectations (which decrease once you have tenure) is the satisfaction of helping kids, not career advancement. If you're going to get the same 2% annual raise whether your students can read or not, how would that impact your attitude over time?

Disillusionment is a bigger problem in K-12 than compensation in my opinion. Salaries are just easier for people to understand, so that's where the fight is.

Plus, and this is no minor thing, don't forget about tenure. After three years, it's almost impossible to get fired, whether they do a great job or a crappy one, unless they do something really stupid. That kind of job security is a pretty good benefit, which is available in very few, if any, other career fields. Having been married to a teacher for 15 years, I know that most are very dedicated to their profession. However, I also know that there are virtually no consequences for those that aren't. But the whole idea that teachers as a group are grossly underpaid is a gigantic red herring. Most people buy into it though, because they've had that belief spoon fed to them for such a long time.

I briefly mentioned that. The worst teachers are in their first two years (inexperienced, in over their heads) or their last five years (just clocking in before they can retire and get paid almost as much to not work for the rest of their lives). Tenure may have some validity at the university level when it comes to pursuing unconventional, ground-breaking research, but I'm not sure what the value is for K-12.

There are definitely teachers that deserve to be paid more, as well as many others that shouldn't be in a classroom at all. To some degree that's just the nature of a union. It's designed for the greater good of the group, not the individual, and certainly not for the employer or customer.

In my mind, I equate teachers to police officers. Both are paid by the tax payers. There are some really good ones who make our community a better place and deserve a huge salary. There are also those who aren't good at all.

Cmon man…. Why do you have to turn it into a political discussion? The simple fact are some teachers are good, and some are bad with no chance of getting fired.

[coloradocat]

Teacher compensation is set up in such a way that both sides can be right depending on what their argument is.

The salaries are low relative to many other professions and considering that they are responsible for educating the next generation, they should be valued more.

However, they only work 8-9 months of the year, get as much PTO/sick days on top of that as most industries get for 12 months of work, get a pension that is partially/largely funded by their employer and are still being able to contribute to a separate 401K-like retirement fund. Total career/lifetime compensation is not nearly as low as people are led to believe.

Raising the salary/compensation would be a nice gesture but I'm not sure it would have a significant impact on the quantity of teachers or the quality of the output. Teachers get run down over so many years dealing with kids and administrators more so than because they are making less than they would like. There is also a barrier to entry via the certification process so if someone with real-world skills wants to become a teacher they can't just walk into a classroom like they could in a college/university, they have to go back to school to work their way through the system of red tape.

Also, because nearly all teachers in government schools are unionized, the only motivation to surpass the minimum expectations (which decrease once you have tenure) is the satisfaction of helping kids, not career advancement. If you're going to get the same 2% annual raise whether your students can read or not, how would that impact your attitude over time?

Disillusionment is a bigger problem in K-12 than compensation in my opinion. Salaries are just easier for people to understand, so that's where the fight is.

Plus, and this is no minor thing, don't forget about tenure. After three years, it's almost impossible to get fired, whether they do a great job or a crappy one, unless they do something really stupid. That kind of job security is a pretty good benefit, which is available in very few, if any, other career fields. Having been married to a teacher for 15 years, I know that most are very dedicated to their profession. However, I also know that there are virtually no consequences for those that aren't. But the whole idea that teachers as a group are grossly underpaid is a gigantic red herring. Most people buy into it though, because they've had that belief spoon fed to them for such a long time.

I briefly mentioned that. The worst teachers are in their first two years (inexperienced, in over their heads) or their last five years (just clocking in before they can retire and get paid almost as much to not work for the rest of their lives). Tenure may have some validity at the university level when it comes to pursuing unconventional, ground-breaking research, but I'm not sure what the value is for K-12.

There are definitely teachers that deserve to be paid more, as well as many others that shouldn't be in a classroom at all. To some degree that's just the nature of a union. It's designed for the greater good of the group, not the individual, and certainly not for the employer or customer.

In my mind, I equate teachers to police officers. Both are paid by the tax payers. There are some really good ones who make our community a better place and deserve a huge salary. There are also those who aren't good at all.

Cmon man…. Why do you have to turn it into a political discussion? The simple fact are some teachers are good, and some are bad with no chance of getting fired.

I'm not sure how he turned it into a political discussion. The analogy is accurate the way both of your put it. The consequences to society are stronger when it comes to cops though, but that's an entirely different conversation that we can't get away with on BN.

Getting back to education, I don't see how the problems are solved when there are parties that are either incentivized to continue them or not incentivized to address them. We all have opinions on what the problems are and the different groups responsible but the conversation has probably run its course at this point.