Teachers have a tough job and deserve to be paid well
I am not a teacher, but I used to be, I taught mathematics in a Michigan High School for four years. As the primary provider for a family we qualified for food stamps. I left teaching, went to industry, doubled my income and cut my workload in half. Admittedly that was not in Washtenaw County.
I don’t believe (as claimed in a letter in Oct 29 edition) the average public school teacher in Washtenaw County earns $70,000 per year, but I wish they did. It would be great to think that teachers are valued as professionals who make significant contributions to our society. The students of Washtenaw County continually receive higher than average scores in state and national testing.
A teacher in Michigan must have earned a bachelor’s degree from a state accredited university as well as completed coursework in teacher preparation (that’s at least a second minor). They also must pass a proficiency exam in all disciplines they hope to teach. That’s just to get started! If they want to continue teaching they must take graduate level courses at a rate of about two per year (thousands of dollars each year, out of their own pocket). So much for summers off.
Teachers are public employees and their pay scales are public knowledge. It is easy to look at a wage scale and assume most people are earning the top wage. Unlike most other wage scales, each step represents at least one year not weeks or months.
Public school teachers are hard working professionals who spend at least as much waking time with our children as we do as parents. They deserve our respect, appreciation and to earn a living wage.
John Muszkiewicz Lima Township
Comments
toomuchtodo
Mon, Nov 16, 2009 : 10:30 a.m.
@WeNotTHem: I don't think that is necessarily true about step raise schedules being detrimental to transitions between school districts, as our school district often hires teachers in at advanced steps as related to their prior experience. Also, I don't feel that these forums are "distorting" the hard work that many teachers perform. But, I find it very annoying when even to suggest teachers should have a pay freeze, or maybe pay a bit more for their benefits, it becomes an argument of "we are not valued, we are not respected, we shouldn't have to balance the budgets on OUR backs, blah, blah, blah"... The issue becomes personalized. I totally respect the job that teachers do, and think that some are in fact under-compensated... but when I see swarms of teachers being laid off, meanwhile the remaining ones are getting a 5% step raise, and the union says to the taxpayers (who may themselves be out of a job) "if you don't like that we have great benefits and you don't, get your own union" I start to feel that the union interests have taken priority over the taxpayer interests (of educating our children). This does not make sense IF we really want to do what is best for the kids. I think that in these difficult economic times, it is absolutely fair to question compensation for all public employees- including, and in particular, teachers, as their compensation ranks relatively highly compared to other states compensation for teachers (11th?). And yet, our state has scored below the national average (2009) in math/science MEAP scores. So, I am not convinced that higher salaries/benefits necessarily correspond to better student results, and think that a merit pay system, with relaxed (not eliminated) tenure laws, would result in a more effective education system. I have nothing personal or ideologically against unions, but the MEA has stood against all reforms regarding merit pay, health care reform, etc. Even so, I am convinced that Michigan residents actually DO need to pay more taxes, and that the things and way we are taxed must be reformed. However, I do not think that the additional tax money should go necessarily to K-12 education, as Michigan already ranks very highly (2nd in the nation, 2006!) in the percentage of money (personal income) that we spend on our K-12 schools! Meanwhile, our roads are barely drivable, fire stations are closing, voicemail seems to run all state offices due to lack of employees, etc.
"We" not "Them"
Sun, Nov 15, 2009 : 4:53 a.m.
I posted a similar post in another forum, but I think the facts need to be accurate in this forum as well. Ive been frustrated by how many unsupported or facts have been thrown around in this school finance debate. I became even more suspicious when I followed someones link claiming that teachers make 70K and found that their source was the superintendent (not exactly an unbiased source). So I sought out to find a neutral third party to inform me (because I am no salary or benefits expert). I chose Salary.com as an unbiased source. Here is what they report as the average compensation (salary + benefits) for different professions in Washtenaw County. Patrol Officer - $75,589 Secretary $75, 906 Public School Teacher $76,420 Electrical Engineer - $88,646 I apologize for not including all of the links, but, theyre really long. For space purposes Ill include only the secretary link, I think people can navigate to the rest. Just click on the benefits tab. http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/layoutscripts/swzl_salaryresults.asp?op=salswz_psr&jobfamilycode=2&txtKeyword=secretary&hdOmniNarrowDesc=Administrative%2C+Support%2C+and+Clerical&hdZipCode=48176&hdOmniTotalJobsFound=15&pagefrom=selectjob&hdJobCategory=OF01&hdGeoLocation=Saline%2C+MI+48176&countertype=0&totaljoblistnum=15&joblevelcode=3&hdCurrentPage=1&hdNarrowDesc=Administrative%2C+Support%2C+and+Clerical&hdLocationOption=0&hdViewAllRecords=0&hdJobTitle=Executive+Assistant&hdSearchByOption=0&hdKeyword=secretary&rdbSearchByOption=0&hdStateMetro=209&jobcounter=1&hdSortBy=0&hdJobCode=OF13000004&hdJSBoolDisplayAdvertisement=&hdAjaxKeyword=secretary&hdAjaxKeywordWithOR=%23secretary%23&hdAjaxDisplaySection1=1&hdAjaxDisplaySection2=0 Again, thats not just salary, but benefits and salary included. By that account teachers seem to be getting compensated in line with most professionals in the area and less than other professionals with masters degrees. I say masters degree because Salary.com reports that 47% of teachers in this area have masters degree. As far as the union references, youre either for or against unions, and nothing Im going to say is going to change that, but the tenure system is a state government mandated system, so its unfair to blame unions for that. The tenure system may or may not need to be reformed, but it is certainly not one sided exclusively to the benefit of teachers. In the State of Michigan teachers must work for 4 years before they are granted tenure. The state establishes that timeframe as an audition of sorts. For 4 years teachers have no job protection rights, save for federal protection against ethnic or gender discrimination. The school district does not have to give any justification for choosing to not grant a teacher tenure. New teachers are at the mercy of the school district and there is nothing any union can do about it. The state says that in 4 years the school district should be able to determine if the teacher is a good teacher. Im not saying the system doesnt need reform, but virtually every state has tenure laws that were created by legislators, not unions. Another aspect of teacher compensation that often only gets a one sided viewpoint is that of stepped salary increases. While some may see a benefit to having pre-determined salary steps, there are definite downsides. The most prominent downside being that, once a teacher advances in steps, they are sort of locked into serving that district. Most private sector workers can openly seek other employment opportunities when the situation arises and expect relatively equal compensation. Teachers, on the other hand, know that if they needed to change districts that they would have to start all over on step 1 (over a 50% paycut for anyone with +10 years experience) and many would lose their tenure. Again, Im not saying the system is ideal or doesnt need major reform, just that the portrayal of the system and the role teachers play in that system appears to have been vastly distorted in many of the forums surrounding this topic. To read many of these forums youd think everyone was rushing to this lush job, but the reality is that 50% of teacher quit during their first 5 years (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/08/AR2006050801344.html), I think this article does a fair job of illuminating some of the challenges teachers must face.
DonBee
Sat, Nov 14, 2009 : 4:19 p.m.
http://blog.mlive.com/ann_arbor_news_extra/2007/08/how_much_pay_for_teachers.html. http://www.a2politico.com/?tag=washtenaw-intermediate-school-district. http://annarborchronicle.com/2009/10/19/does-it-take-a-millage/ Here are 3 different articles that talk about teacher's salary. The $70,000 number of Ann Arbor, seems to be correct. Add to that a 16% tax on teacher payroll for teacher retirement, and the benefit costs in article #2 and teachers cost about $90,000 each per year for the Ann Arbor Public Schools. This is not my number it was a number that Superintendent of Schools Roberts made when talking about laying off teachers -that each one would save the school $90,000. You may not have made $70,000 when you were teaching and young teachers do not, but there are (according to article #1) a number of teachers pushing $100,000 a year. The salary table from last year's contract is posted here. The step scale works in two dimensions - one is annual raises from years 1 to 11 and then another one in year 15 (steps 1 to 10, L1 and L2). The other is based on college education level and allows increasing salary all the way through a second PhD or a third Master's degree. I don't want to see teacher's pay cut, but I also don't want to see them laid off. You will also note that more than 40% of the money spent is spent not on the classroom, but on overhead of various sorts. That is the piece i would like to see trimmed. Lets start with the 20 or 21 high school principals and vice principals in Ann Arbor, all of whom make more than $100,000 a year and have a staff that is never less than 1 and for some runs to 4 or 5. A rough estimate is cutting to 10 Principals and vice principals with staff would probably save Ann Arbor about $1.5 million a year. That is a good start on the funding gap. See my other posts in other threads for other ideas.
shepard145
Sat, Nov 14, 2009 : 2:50 p.m.
I respect teachers as individuals and agree, they have a tough and important job. But in my opinion when teachers became just another band of unionized labor, they sold out the right to refer themselves as "professionals". They are union workers fulfilling a union contract. Wishing teachers are paid huge salaries at taxpayer expense ignores the fact that they work about 7 months a year with the most lavish vacation of any union worker category. If you compare them to truck drivers, fork-lift operators or plumbers they do very well. I'm tired of hearing the constant stream of complaints and even the most lavishly funded districts constantly demanding more money "for the children"! I'm also sick of the democrat granholm (worst governor and national laughing stock) cram down state tax increases in the form of school funding reduction leading to demands for local millage increases.
toomuchtodo
Sat, Nov 14, 2009 : 2:19 p.m.
Comparisons are often made between specialized teacher subsets (math and science teachers, specifically) to justify that teachers "as a whole" are not compensated on par with other professionals. However, there is a wide variation in compensation for similar jobs in the private sector, and compensation is based on many factors, both market-driven and skill-based. Teachers are compensated based simply on experience (ie., yearly step raises and longevity raises)and degree level. We simply cannot afford (as a state) to compensate ALL teachers at a rate comparable to the math/science teachers who are relatively underpaid for their choice of occupation. A merit-pay system would allow greater range of compensation for teachers, and would likely improve student outcomes. See http://www.performanceincentives.org/ncpi_publications/PodgurskyandSpringer-TeacherPerformancePay.pdf
John Galt
Sat, Nov 14, 2009 : 12:47 p.m.
Deserve has nothing to do with it. A group of people deserve nothing. Some individual teachers have EARNED their levels of pay (or perhaps earned a claim to more). Others have NOT earned it, but nevertheless feel entitled. The current union-based compensation system does not base pay on merit, rather a fixed formula that is based on time of service. If anything, the taxpayer 'deserves' to get value for the money that is extorted by the government. Instead it is treated as a never-ending source of funds to compensate the public sector (wages and benefits) that are higher than many make in the private sector. When hard times ensue, the public sector feels it should be immune, while the private sector suffers. Until pay is based on performance and the public teachers share in the sacrifices the rest of us are required to make, I will not support the pleas for ever more money.
TruBlue
Sat, Nov 14, 2009 : 11:02 a.m.
What's not to believe? It's public knowledge that teachers in AA average $70k for 9 months work. Some make more, some less. I am not saying they should work for free, just that the educational system has been insulated from the economic issues of the state.
mytwocents
Sat, Nov 14, 2009 : 10:25 a.m.
It's nice to read a supportive opinion that includes facts.
SchoolBooster
Sat, Nov 14, 2009 : 10:08 a.m.
Wherever this new (first four years) teacher was making below the poverty level, there were other teachers in his district who were not working nearly as hard but were making considerably more just because they had been around longer. That's wrong. If his district had needed to cut back, they would have been forced to lay off new teachers like him to protect the higher salaries of those with seniority. So his wage would have gone from low to zero while the more senior teacher's wage remained the same. That's wrong. When this math teacher was laid off, students would likely have fewer math options to choose from. That's wrong. And before they even got to that, the district might have laid off ALL the custodians and bus drivers in favor of privatized services. Those people were probably making considerably less than this low-paid young teacher and they lost their jobs entirely so other people wouldn't have to sacrifice. That's wrong. The union leadership can position themselves all they want. Prepare to hear how they're just doing what their membership tells them to do, and how THEY aren't the ones laying people off, the administration is. But the right and wrong choices are very clear here.