Fall enrollment 2023 record

[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.

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.

There's literally nothing political about my post.

[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.

There's literally nothing political about my post.

In 50+ years of life, I have never encountered a “bad” police officer. In 20 years of dealing with my kids educations, I have seen too many poor teachers. Everyone has. It is a real problem. Parents and students talk about the teachers to avoid - in every grade. It has become a real issue. Even administrators will acknowledge in private that a specific teacher may not be effective, but their hands are tied due to tenure.

Now of course there are some bad actors with the police, but it is not even comparable in terms of occurrence. Unless of course you are a “defund the police” supporter- hence the political undertones of your comment.

[grizzh8r]

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.

There's literally nothing political about my post.

In 50+ years of life, I have never encountered a “bad” police officer. In 20 years of dealing with my kids educations, I have seen too many poor teachers. Everyone has. It is a real problem. Parents and students talk about the teachers to avoid - in every grade. It has become a real issue. Even administrators will acknowledge in private that a specific teacher may not be effective, but their hands are tied due to tenure.

Now of course there are some bad actors with the police, but it is not even comparable in terms of occurrence. Unless of course you are a “defund the police” supporter- hence the political undertones of your comment.

What undertones? Methinks you're reaching again...

[TomCat88]

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.

There's literally nothing political about my post.

In 50+ years of life, I have never encountered a “bad” police officer. In 20 years of dealing with my kids educations, I have seen too many poor teachers. Everyone has. It is a real problem. Parents and students talk about the teachers to avoid - in every grade. It has become a real issue. Even administrators will acknowledge in private that a specific teacher may not be effective, but their hands are tied due to tenure.

Now of course there are some bad actors with the police, but it is not even comparable in terms of occurrence. Unless of course you are a “defund the police” supporter- hence the political undertones of your comment.

Kind of a tough comparison to make between bad teachers and bad police. You spend five days a week for nine months out of the year in a classroom in direct contact with a teacher for 6-7 hours a day for 13+ years. Your are that close to police only when you get pulled over, bailing someone out of jail or see them at a coffee shop. If police had the same number of people they encountered daily, they most likely would have the same amount of likes/dislikes as teachers or anyone else for that matter. Some people have had bad experiences with priests, Santa, nuns, customer support, coaches, even the media!! (Lol).

[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.

There's literally nothing political about my post.

In 50+ years of life, I have never encountered a “bad” police officer. In 20 years of dealing with my kids educations, I have seen too many poor teachers. Everyone has. It is a real problem. Parents and students talk about the teachers to avoid - in every grade. It has become a real issue. Even administrators will acknowledge in private that a specific teacher may not be effective, but their hands are tied due to tenure.

Now of course there are some bad actors with the police, but it is not even comparable in terms of occurrence. Unless of course you are a “defund the police” supporter- hence the political undertones of your comment.

Kind of a tough comparison to make between bad teachers and bad police. You spend five days a week for nine months out of the year in a classroom in direct contact with a teacher for 6-7 hours a day for 13+ years. Your are that close to police only when you get pulled over, bailing someone out of jail or see them at a coffee shop. If police had the same number of people they encountered daily, they most likely would have the same amount of likes/dislikes as teachers or anyone else for that matter. Some people have had bad experiences with priests, Santa, nuns, customer support, coaches, even the media!! (Lol).

You got it! But I don’t see wbtfg comparing teachers to priests, Santa, nuns, customer support, coaches or media. He compared them to cops…. Funny how a far left poster (wbtfg) used police as a comparison instead of anything else in the world. But of course, that is just a coincidence and has nothing to do with his political views.

Also, did you notice how you dispel my comparison of teachers and police, but you seem okay with his comparison of teachers and police?

[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.

There's literally nothing political about my post.

In 50+ years of life, I have never encountered a “bad” police officer. In 20 years of dealing with my kids educations, I have seen too many poor teachers. Everyone has. It is a real problem. Parents and students talk about the teachers to avoid - in every grade. It has become a real issue. Even administrators will acknowledge in private that a specific teacher may not be effective, but their hands are tied due to tenure.

Now of course there are some bad actors with the police, but it is not even comparable in terms of occurrence. Unless of course you are a “defund the police” supporter- hence the political undertones of your comment.

Kind of a tough comparison to make between bad teachers and bad police. You spend five days a week for nine months out of the year in a classroom in direct contact with a teacher for 6-7 hours a day for 13+ years. Your are that close to police only when you get pulled over, bailing someone out of jail or see them at a coffee shop. If police had the same number of people they encountered daily, they most likely would have the same amount of likes/dislikes as teachers or anyone else for that matter. Some people have had bad experiences with priests, Santa, nuns, customer support, coaches, even the media!! (Lol).

You got it! But I don’t see wbtfg comparing teachers to priests, Santa, nuns, customer support, coaches or media. He compared them to cops…. Funny how a far left poster (wbtfg) used police as a comparison instead of anything else in the world. But of course, that is just a coincidence and has nothing to do with his political views.

Also, did you notice how you dispel my comparison of teachers and police, but you seem okay with his comparison of teachers and police?

His comparison to police is much more applicable to the conversation because both are highly politicized, unionized, government employees in broken systems with little functional oversight and/or consequences for failure to achieve what the public perceives to be their objectives.

People have occasional bad experiences with the other groups that Tom mentioned but they aren't forced to pay those groups with little to no alternatives when they are dissatisfied.

Read wbtfg's post again:

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.

In the context of where the discussion was at (the disconnect between pay and performance) it fits perfectly when viewing it from the angle I mentioned at the beginning of this post.

[grizzh8r]

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.

There's literally nothing political about my post.

In 50+ years of life, I have never encountered a “bad” police officer. In 20 years of dealing with my kids educations, I have seen too many poor teachers. Everyone has. It is a real problem. Parents and students talk about the teachers to avoid - in every grade. It has become a real issue. Even administrators will acknowledge in private that a specific teacher may not be effective, but their hands are tied due to tenure.

Now of course there are some bad actors with the police, but it is not even comparable in terms of occurrence. Unless of course you are a “defund the police” supporter- hence the political undertones of your comment.

Kind of a tough comparison to make between bad teachers and bad police. You spend five days a week for nine months out of the year in a classroom in direct contact with a teacher for 6-7 hours a day for 13+ years. Your are that close to police only when you get pulled over, bailing someone out of jail or see them at a coffee shop. If police had the same number of people they encountered daily, they most likely would have the same amount of likes/dislikes as teachers or anyone else for that matter. Some people have had bad experiences with priests, Santa, nuns, customer support, coaches, even the media!! (Lol).

You got it! But I don’t see wbtfg comparing teachers to priests, Santa, nuns, customer support, coaches or media. He compared them to cops…. Funny how a far left poster (wbtfg) used police as a comparison instead of anything else in the world. But of course, that is just a coincidence and has nothing to do with his political views.

Also, did you notice how you dispel my comparison of teachers and police, but you seem okay with his comparison of teachers and police?

You may be getting him confused with someone else. No doubt he's left of center, but I'd say he's closer to center than someone like say Schumer/Pelosi/AOC... just saying...

[wbtfg]

This is hilarious.

[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.

There's literally nothing political about my post.

In 50+ years of life, I have never encountered a “bad” police officer. In 20 years of dealing with my kids educations, I have seen too many poor teachers. Everyone has. It is a real problem. Parents and students talk about the teachers to avoid - in every grade. It has become a real issue. Even administrators will acknowledge in private that a specific teacher may not be effective, but their hands are tied due to tenure.

Now of course there are some bad actors with the police, but it is not even comparable in terms of occurrence. Unless of course you are a “defund the police” supporter- hence the political undertones of your comment.

Kind of a tough comparison to make between bad teachers and bad police. You spend five days a week for nine months out of the year in a classroom in direct contact with a teacher for 6-7 hours a day for 13+ years. Your are that close to police only when you get pulled over, bailing someone out of jail or see them at a coffee shop. If police had the same number of people they encountered daily, they most likely would have the same amount of likes/dislikes as teachers or anyone else for that matter. Some people have had bad experiences with priests, Santa, nuns, customer support, coaches, even the media!! (Lol).

You got it! But I don’t see wbtfg comparing teachers to priests, Santa, nuns, customer support, coaches or media. He compared them to cops…. Funny how a far left poster (wbtfg) used police as a comparison instead of anything else in the world. But of course, that is just a coincidence and has nothing to do with his political views.

Also, did you notice how you dispel my comparison of teachers and police, but you seem okay with his comparison of teachers and police?

You may be getting him confused with someone else. No doubt he's left of center, but I'd say he's closer to center than someone like say Schumer/Pelosi/AOC... just saying...

Discussing the issues was a long time ago, but I thought he was good with many far left topics like defund the police. But based on has last comments, this is all pretty hilarious.

Forgive me if I overreacted, but have absolutely no patience for any attack on the police. If there are bad actors, we remove them. But on the whole, police are an important component making our way of life possible in the US.

[wbtfg]

No one attacked police officers. Lol.

I compared them to teachers. Two professions I have the utmost respect for. That's not an attack.

But on the whole, police are an important component making our way of life possible in the US.

I agree with this 100%.

I would also say this is equally true for educators.

[wbtfg]

In addition to record enrollment, it looks like we just had 6 new building projects approved (https://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/n ... b5744.html).

Back to the enrollment discussion. The Montana University System has posted their updated Enrollment Dashboard.

A few interesting tidbits...all of these are for the main campus (excludes 2-year programs or duel enrollment HS kids)

Full-Time Enrolled Undergrads
MSU: 13,483
UM: 5,564

Grad students:
UM: 2,757
MSU: 2,093

Main Campus Head count:
MSU: 16,072
UM: 8,891

Non-resident
MSU: 8,536
UM: 3,710

In State
MSU: 7,536
UM: 5,181

[coloradocat]

In addition to record enrollment, it looks like we just had 6 new building projects approved (https://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/n ... b5744.html).

Back to the enrollment discussion. The Montana University System has posted their updated Enrollment Dashboard.

A few interesting tidbits...all of these are for the main campus (excludes 2-year programs or duel enrollment HS kids)

Full-Time Enrolled Undergrads
MSU: 13,483
UM: 5,564

Grad students:
UM: 2,757
MSU: 2,093

Main Campus Head count:
MSU: 16,072
UM: 8,891

Non-resident
MSU: 8,536
UM: 3,710

In State
MSU: 7,536
UM: 5,181

Are their grad student numbers due to law school and MBAs or do they have another large program?

[wbtfg]

In addition to record enrollment, it looks like we just had 6 new building projects approved (https://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/n ... b5744.html).

Back to the enrollment discussion. The Montana University System has posted their updated Enrollment Dashboard.

A few interesting tidbits...all of these are for the main campus (excludes 2-year programs or duel enrollment HS kids)

Full-Time Enrolled Undergrads
MSU: 13,483
UM: 5,564

Grad students:
UM: 2,757
MSU: 2,093

Main Campus Head count:
MSU: 16,072
UM: 8,891

Non-resident
MSU: 8,536
UM: 3,710

In State
MSU: 7,536
UM: 5,181

Are their grad student numbers due to law school and MBAs or do they have another large program?

Yeah, I would assume so. Physical therapy and pharmacy as well.

[RickRund]

Those are some pretty ugly numbers over there.

[TomCat88]

From Cruzado newsletter:
“Citing growing enrollment, increasing research funding and solid financial management, Standard & Poor's Global upgraded its credit rating for Montana State University last month to AA- with a stable outlook, the highest rating the university has ever achieved.”

[Camo_Cat]

From Cruzado newsletter:
“Citing growing enrollment, increasing research funding and solid financial management, Standard & Poor's Global upgraded its credit rating for Montana State University last month to AA- with a stable outlook, the highest rating the university has ever achieved.”

Crazy to imagine how the university has grown in all facets under Cruzado's leadership. She clearly ranks among the top presidents the institution has ever had, if not the best. Will be some tough shoes to fill when she decides to move on...

[TomCat88]

From Cruzado newsletter:
“Citing growing enrollment, increasing research funding and solid financial management, Standard & Poor's Global upgraded its credit rating for Montana State University last month to AA- with a stable outlook, the highest rating the university has ever achieved.”

Crazy to imagine how the university has grown in all facets under Cruzado's leadership. She clearly ranks among the top presidents the institution has ever had, if not the best. Will be some tough shoes to fill when she decides to move on...

I believe she’s within a year or two of retirement. I’ve heard she wants get the hotel built and one other thing (East grandstand?) done first. Could be completely wrong about that though. She’s left a good blueprint to follow and I would expect her to be on the hiring committee unless that’s not allowed for some reason.