It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

$100,000+ Salaries for School Teachers?

page: 12
31
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 09:04 PM
link   
56 k is fairly reasonable. The 40 k benefits are pretty steep. That said, I don't think teachers get more than they deserve. The real problem is that a majority of private sector employees don't get anywhere near what they deserve and teachers earnings only look high because everyone else is getting paid so little. I am a firm believer that wages should keep up with inflation(we should target 0% inflation), and that a lifetime worker should get a decent pension and health benefits. Without those benefits pay would have to be near 100k a year in order to save for and live a dignified retirement.

What isn't fair is including overtime in pensions and allowing double dipping. I know a fireman who is retiring next month with a 150k pension and a lump sum of almost $1 million. I value his service but this is a bit overboard. The other part of the problem is those providing the benefits tend to get financial windfalls from the governments as well.

You can put me down for universal health and dental care and an expanded role of social security.




posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Tomyj04
 





The average teacher’s salary (nation wide) is $50,000. $50,000/180 days = $277.77/per day/30 students=$9.25/6.5 hours = $1.42 per hour per student–a very inexpensive baby-sitter and they even EDUCATE your kids!)


Yes and when I babysat I had three or four kids to watch, change diapers and help with homework (I always seem to end up tutoring) and I did that for $0.50/hr. So you point is????



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


What is society's responsibility is to provide a safe environment wherein anyone who is willing to work can support himself on the wages paid without taxpayer assistance.

Every person who has a fulltime job and still needs food stamps, medical, or rent supports, supports of any kind, represents a taxpayer subsidy of the employer.

By all means, take away all government support in those areas, but on the flip side, require that all businesses pay a wage that doesn't require state supplements and take away all government support of business, including CDC research, military and Coast Guard. No one has a right to hire anyone for wage that demands state support, broadly speaking, and why should I pay for rescuing some cargo ship or fishing boat in trouble? Or for basic research that pharmaceutical companies use for profit?

There might be fewer jobs at first, but the higher wages will still stimulate more economic activity. If a business can't figure out how to make a profit while paying a living wage, then hell...get a job and quit pretending you're a successful businessman.

Sheesh, big business wants tax breaks for simply being, guaranteed profits, and a government subsidized workforce trained at government expense, while they outsource jobs and shelter profits overseas and you are whining, yes whining, about teachers asking for a fair shake.

Again, I feel compelled to remind you that the dispute isn't about money, pay, or benefits, it's about bargaining rights.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 09:11 PM
link   
I been throwing this theory around for nearly 20 years.....

Why do we have public schools past say 6th grade...or maybe..maybe 8th grade..

If one can't learn math "including algebra" reading writing and all the skills that the normal work force uses, in 6-8 years...

Why should the rest of the nation pay for a child that just wants to "get by"

If I had my way anything past a 6th grade education would be out of the parents pocket...considered college.

Yeah I'm a bit sour on the whole issue, I been paying school taxes for kids and "I have no childeren" for nearly 30 years.....

Throw the school reform in with the healthcare issue and start over on both I say!!!!!



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by backwherewestarted
 





1) Yet you make teachers out to be horrible people who are mostly bad employees. 2) It is the parents job to prepare their children to be punctual, polite and tidy in appearance, not the teachers and the idea that it is the teachers responsibility is asinine at best. That kind of thinking is exactly what the biggest problem in education is today...parents who think teachers should raise their kids. A math teachers job is to give the kids the chance to learn and understand math, a history teachers job is to give the kids the chance to learn and understand history. The parents job is to teach the kids how to act appropriately, how to be punctual, how to be respectful,to have a solid work ethic and to work with their children to supplement their education. You are exactly what is wrong with our educational system and why some people make asinine statements about it in this thread.


You missed my comment - the rest of society. As another commenter stated, if the Unions also went after the Feds and the schools systems to CHANGE the education system for the better, then I would support them. They do not because they support the ultimate goal of John Dewey's "Progressive Education" and that is to make dumb little socialist slaves.

You also missed my comment of WHY our school system has grown worse and worse with each passing year. It was INTENTIONAL and I see absolutely no reason to pay teachers to brainwash children into being "good little socialists" who are unable to even THINK.


...Dewey's philosophy had evolved from Hegelian idealism to socialist materialism, and the purpose of the school was to show how education could be changed to produce little socialists and collectivists instead of little capitalists and individualists. It was expected that these little socialists, when they became voting adults, would dutifully change the American economic system into a socialist one.

In order to do so he analyzed the traditional curriculum that sustained the capitalist, individualistic system and found what he believed was the sustaining linchpin -- that is, the key element that held the entire system together: high literacy. To Dewey, the greatest obstacle to socialism was the private mind that seeks knowledge in order to exercise its own private judgment and intellectual authority. High literacy gave the individual the means to seek knowledge independently. It gave individuals the means to stand on their own two feet and think for themselves. This was detrimental to the "social spirit" needed to bring about a collectivist society.... www.ordination.org...



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by crimvelvet
 


You seem to ignore the fact that no one forced the companies to move jobs overseas: they chose to do so.

It wasn't that they weren't making money as things were, it was that they wanted more, without once thinking of the consequences of their behavior, and not once taking responsibility for it. They built their businesses on taxpayer-built and maintained roads, with taxpayer-paid police protection, taxpayer subsidized marketing, a taxpayer-paid worker education system, and a taxpayer-subsidized workforce . Instead of being grateful that so much was handed them on a plate and reinvesting in the society they took so much from, they chose to go where they could make even more money by polluting more, paying less, and use cheaper materials.

Now rather than face and accept responsibility for the consequences of their behavior and use some of the trillions in cash they have stockpiled to hire Americans to produce real products here and jumpstart the economy, they prefer to scapegoat unions.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 09:22 PM
link   
It really burns me up to see ill-considered and offending comments about teachers and the role they play and how much they get paid. I'll be honest and say that yes, I am a teacher and for the most part ignore the general appathy towards teachers and how much they get paid. No more! It's time for me to 'whack' back.

I teach in a government school in Western Australia, for which i received the princely sum of about $83,000 AUD last year. I am a 20 year 'veteran' and work with a class combined class of 48, 12 & 13 year old children. In W.A. they are still in Primary (Elementary) school and I see my major role , but not limited to, as preparing them to cope with the demands that will be placed on them in high school. Last year the students who I am responsible for did extremely well in the National Testing, even hitting national averages in Maths, very pleasing when you consider the children I teach exist in what would be called a socially disadvantaged area. By the way, last year I had 62 children that managed to achieve this feat!

I just love hearing the good old chestnut about how there are soooooooo many bad teachers out their and that they are used to label everyone in the job. Well I have some news for you; yes there are bad teachers, I know plenty of them, but there are lots of poor police officers, nurses, doctors, accountant, lawyers, politicians, plumbers, electricians (need I go on?) out there too, often earning far more money. That said, it is teachers who appear to be the ones so heavily critcised for the perceived poor teaching standard! Just because you went to school (reading some of the comments here I wonder for how long) and had children go to school, it doesn't mean you know the job! There is plenty that goes on behind the scenes that you never see.

I could rant and rave but to be honest I just don't have the desire (or time) to change the opinions of ignorant and ill-informed people.

Peace,
Bunyipboy.

P.S. If you can read this; THANK A TEACHER!!!!!



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 09:23 PM
link   
Okay, I read up to page 4 and couldn't take the ignorance anymore. Teachers do NOT make $100,000 a year. I live in one of the greatest school districts in the country(That's not an exaggeration), where my mother is also employed as a teacher. She makes roughly 45K. The highest amount I've ever heard a teacher getting paid was barely over 85K, and that's only one who holds their master's and has worked in the school district for over 30 years.

I assume most of you have no idea what it takes to be a teacher. AT LEAST 4 years of college, months of student teaching, and countless hours preparing lesson plans. Trust me, your certificates are not equivalent to the education a teacher has to acquire. Most of you on here don't even have the mental capacity to pass the C-Base required to take higher level education classes, let alone manage a classroom while simultaneously trying to get 15-20 children to comprehend something new.

The work a GOOD teacher does on a daily basis is far superior to any labor job, and deserves pay accordingly. Yes, there are a lot of bad teachers getting paid way more than they should, not to mention having a job when they shouldn't, and that's the problem, not teachers getting paid too much. I think anyone with half a brain can agree that teachers don't get paid enough, and so many of you want to say YOU should earn more than a teacher. This is me scoffing...



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Common Scarecrow
reply to post by backwherewestarted
 


I DID answer your question. I constantly hear from teachers and their supporters how great a job they do by looking at the successful students. They WANT to take credit for the good but not the bad.

Seems kind of phony to me.

By the way, what comment am I supposed to comment on?
edit on 20-2-2011 by Common Scarecrow because: Added text


Wait, so I asked "How can you quantify that the teachers are completely responsible for "the quality of their product (the students) has gone through the floor.?" and your response is "because I hear from ones who say they do a great job and they want to take credit for the good but not the bad?" That has to be the most unintelligent response to a question I have ever seen on ATS and that includes macman's nonsense.

I am willing to bet if you had an actual discussion with a teacher you would find very few who would take total credit.
Even if you know some teachers claiming total credit that does not make it right to give total blame. Two wrong do not make a right. (perhaps you learned that in kindergarten)

I figured you might have something to say about my pointing out how only bad teachers get a teaching plan together their first year and then coast. Of course I figured you, macman and crimvelvet wanted to actually discuss the merits of teachers and not simply try to shout down anyone not saying "teachers suck!"



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doc Holiday


Yeah I'm a bit sour on the whole issue, I been paying school taxes for kids and "I have no childeren" for nearly 30 years.....



So have a few kids and quit whining doc, lol


Or adopted 5 or 6 you'll get your moneys worth then.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by crimvelvet
reply to post by backwherewestarted
 





1) Yet you make teachers out to be horrible people who are mostly bad employees. 2) It is the parents job to prepare their children to be punctual, polite and tidy in appearance, not the teachers and the idea that it is the teachers responsibility is asinine at best. That kind of thinking is exactly what the biggest problem in education is today...parents who think teachers should raise their kids. A math teachers job is to give the kids the chance to learn and understand math, a history teachers job is to give the kids the chance to learn and understand history. The parents job is to teach the kids how to act appropriately, how to be punctual, how to be respectful,to have a solid work ethic and to work with their children to supplement their education. You are exactly what is wrong with our educational system and why some people make asinine statements about it in this thread.


You missed my comment - the rest of society. As another commenter stated, if the Unions also went after the Feds and the schools systems to CHANGE the education system for the better, then I would support them. They do not because they support the ultimate goal of John Dewey's "Progressive Education" and that is to make dumb little socialist slaves.

You also missed my comment of WHY our school system has grown worse and worse with each passing year. It was INTENTIONAL and I see absolutely no reason to pay teachers to brainwash children into being "good little socialists" who are unable to even THINK.


...Dewey's philosophy had evolved from Hegelian idealism to socialist materialism, and the purpose of the school was to show how education could be changed to produce little socialists and collectivists instead of little capitalists and individualists. It was expected that these little socialists, when they became voting adults, would dutifully change the American economic system into a socialist one.

In order to do so he analyzed the traditional curriculum that sustained the capitalist, individualistic system and found what he believed was the sustaining linchpin -- that is, the key element that held the entire system together: high literacy. To Dewey, the greatest obstacle to socialism was the private mind that seeks knowledge in order to exercise its own private judgment and intellectual authority. High literacy gave the individual the means to seek knowledge independently. It gave individuals the means to stand on their own two feet and think for themselves. This was detrimental to the "social spirit" needed to bring about a collectivist society.... www.ordination.org...


No, I saw it, you said it was the teachers (in all caps) "and the rest of society" (in lower case letter and parentheses). That seems pretty clear where you are putting the emphasis. It also doesn't change the facts of what I said about the teachers not being responsible for the things you listed.

I disagree with the "philosophy" you have decided to latch on to to find a reason to validate your opinion.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by apacheman
 





.... Every person who has a fulltime job and still needs food stamps, medical, or rent supports, supports of any kind, represents a taxpayer subsidy of the employer.....


I really do hate the multinationals but in this case you are barking up the wrong tree. I did quite a bit of investigation into why we can no longer earn a living wage.

The problem boils down to Fractional Reserve Banking, or as it is now ZERO reserve banking aka THEFT.

So lets look at WHY you can't buy what you need on your wages either outright or through saving.

First TAXES:
The last time (1991) I figured out how much I was paying in visible taxes – State, Federal, property, Social Security, medicare, sales and gasoline - it came out to 64.4% of my income. This is collaborated by this quote:

According to an article in The New Republic of Dec. 2, 1991, in 1948, a married couple with median income and two children, paid only 2% in state, federal, and Social Security taxes. In 1999, Social Security was 15.3%, plus 2.9% for Medicare, out of the first $62,700 in wages, or $11,411.40, and then perhaps 30% in federal taxes…if you were lucky.... www.gold-eagle.com...



Then there are the invisible taxes on everything we buy. This is the hidden tax that is so difficult to figure out.

"A third of the cost of a gallon of gas is tax, half the cost of a pack of cigarettes and last I checked (20 years ago), there were 109 different taxes on a loaf of bread before you paid sales tax on the loaf and carried it home.' - JB Williams

"If people need any more concrete explanation of this, start with the staff of life, a loaf of bread. The simplest thing; the poorest man must have it. Well, there are 151 taxes now in the price of a loaf of bread — it accounts for more than half the cost of a loaf of bread. It begins with the first tax, on the farmer that raised the wheat..." - President Ronald Reagan


Lets do the calculations
For every $100 I earn, after I pay my taxes I am left with $35.6. But when I go to buy a product about 1/3 of the cost is additional taxes! So in reality I get to keep and spend a measly $23.73 out of every $100 I earn!

It gets worse
This does not include the fact that I am actually earning 1/3 less in buy power than I was in 1971 when I first started working.


The sneak attack by the banksters – money devaluation:
Here is a money supply/gold/wage chart:
Date.....$ /oz gold.. Money supply......minimum wage...min wage in gold..CEO pay in gold
1971 ......40.62.............. 81 billion...........$1.60 ...................0.0394 oz.
1974 ......195.20...........101 billion...........$2.00.....................0.0102 oz.
1976 ......124.74 ........... $113 billion.......$2.30.....................0.0184 oz............0.663.oz
1985 .....354.20 ...........$205 billion........$3.35....................0.0094 oz.
1994 .....409.80........... $ 406 billion.......$4.25.....................0.0104.oz.
2006 .....636.30 ...........$808 billion........$5.15.....................0.0081 oz.
2008 .....880.30........... $831 billion........$5.85.....................0.0066 oz.............2.44.oz
2009...1,020.28...........$1663 billion........$6.55.....................0.0064.oz.

From the beginning of 1964 to the end of 2010 the bankers have made $1961.967 billion dollars in fiat currency! That is the amount they increased the money supply that is 2016.205 - 54.238


In 1971 I earned $2.75/hr I had a nice two bedroom apartment for $100, a car for $2,000 I paid off in a year and I could even afford to buy and stable a horse. I also put $50 to $100 dollars a month in the bank depending on overtime. Oh, and a nice house sold for about $15,000 to $20,000. (Mom was a real estate agent) I am using 1971 to start because the USA went completely off the gold standard in 1971.

In 1976 I earned $4.45/hr. I had a nice two bedroom apartment again for $100/mo, a car for $5,000 I paid off in a year and I could afford to buy and stable a horse. I was also living on less than $50/wk spending money for groceries, gas, electric, phone and books. I was putting into savings over a hundred a month. I saved about 10-15% of my salary up until the mid eighties and I did not own a credit card or have any loans until the nineties. I bought all but my first two cars with cash.

Now think about it. If I had been married, my spouse and I could have saved up the money to buy that house at $15,000 to $20,000 outright in about five or so years if we both continued to work. The problem is the price of the house went up and the actual value of our wages nose dived thanks to the bankers and politicians.

Let's see why that happened.


In 1976 A typical American CEO earned 36 times as much as the average worker. By 2008 the average CEO pay increased to 369 times that of the average worker. timelines.ws...


If you look at the table the typical American CEO is actually paid five times MORE in “buying power” compared to 1976 while the rest of us are now paid a third of what we were paid in 1976. The price of gold indicates the steady devaluation of the US dollar as its purchasing power is diluted by the ever increasing supply of fiat money.

At the same time our wages were devalued, the price of goods was inflated thanks to taxes and the increased money supply. Therefore we can no longer SAVE to buy things. All the excess "fat" from the economy has been siphoned off and placed in the bankers' pockets. We are now in a vicious cycle of more and more debt.

This also means very few have real wealth to lend. Real wealth that is based on labor and raw materials that produce salable goods.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bunyipboy
.

P.S. If you can read this; THANK A TEACHER!!!!!

If you can read this in English, thank a Vet.


Sorry, could not help myself.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by apacheman
 





You seem to ignore the fact that no one forced the companies to move jobs overseas: they chose to do so.


ERRRrrrr, Did you miss the part about the leveraged buyouts???? Our corporations got RAPED TOO! The money to pay YOUR wages ended up in the pockets of the Banksters and Corporate Raiders. I worked for a very nice well know fortune 500 company. It had NO Debt. It even owned its own power plant! It was the target of a LEVERAGED BUYOUT. By the time everything was finished the company was dead and the factories packed up and shipped overseas.

....These days, corporations seem to exist for the investment bankers.... In fact, investment banks are replacing the publicly held industrial corporations as the largest and most powerful economic institutions in America.... THERE ARE SIGNS THAT A VICIOUS spiral has begun, as each corporate player seeks to improve its standard of living at the expense of another's. Corporate raiders transfer to themselves, and other shareholders, part of the income of employees by forcing the latter to agree to lower wages. January 29, 1989 New York Times: LEVER AGED BUYOUTS: AMERICAN PAYS THE PRICE



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by Bunyipboy
.

P.S. If you can read this; THANK A TEACHER!!!!!

If you can read this in English, thank a Vet.


Sorry, could not help myself.



and going with the emotion of many of the posts... If you can't read this, thank a teacher



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


Hey Macman,

Agree with you whole-heartedly. Seeing the jobs that the military (ours & yours) is doing at the moment, those guys and girls definitely deserve more pay and better "conditions" than they get. (Different discussion however)

Not really the point I was trying to make here though. I take a lot of pride in the job I do, the preparations I make and the "service" I provide and it really infuriates me with all the B.S. there is about teachers. Unfortunately, there is no easy way to determine "value" with teachers as they don't generate revenue. Simply saying "pay them by their results" is a recipe for disaster. Teaching to the test goes on now, do you all want it to be systemic?

Peace,
Bunyipboy



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by backwherewestarted
 





"How can you quantify that the teachers are completely responsible for "the quality of their product (the students) has gone through the floor.?"


Of course they are not. There are four factors:
1. the parents
2. The blasted government
3. the student
4. the teacher

However you CAN say the education in the USA stinks, and since it has steadily gone down hill no one is doing anything about it. (I tutor for free and recommend a home schooling course,so yes I do something)


"For 10 years, William Schmidt, a statistics professor at Michigan State University, has looked at how U.S. students stack up against students in other countries in math and science. .... by 12th-grade, we're at the bottom of the heap, outperforming only two countries, Cyprus and South Africa."
:Source




... Surveys of corporations consistently find that businesses are focused outside • the U.S. to recruit necessary talent. In a 2002 survey, 16 global corporations complained that American schools did not produce students with global skills. United States companies agreed. The survey found that 30 percent of large U.S. companies “believed they had failed to exploit fully their international business opportunities due to insufficient personnel with international skills.” One respondent to the survey even noted, “If I wanted to recruit people who are both technically skilled and culturally aware, I wouldn’t even waste time looking for them on U.S. college campuses.” Junk Food Diet
...the U.S. ranks 21st out of 29 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries in mathematics scores, with nearly one-quarter of students unable to solve the easiest level of questions....In 2000, 28 percent of all freshmen entering a degree-granting institution required remedial coursework
www.edreform.com...


“... Over the last quarter-century, historians have by and large ceased writing about the role of ruling elites in the country's evolution. Or if they have taken up the subject, they have done so to argue against its salience for grasping the essentials of American political history. Yet there is something peculiar about this recent intellectual aversion, even if we accept as true the beliefs that democracy, social mobility, and economic dynamism have long inhibited the congealing of a ruling stratum. This aversion has coincided, after all, with one of the largest and fastest-growing disparities in the division of income and wealth in American history....Neglecting the powerful had not been characteristic of historical work before World War II. ” hnn.us...



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 






Originally posted by Bunyipboy
.

P.S. If you can read this; THANK A TEACHER!!!!!


If you can read this in English, thank a Vet.


I rather thank my grandma who taught me to read at age four.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 10:09 PM
link   
When I was in school the teachers, at best, were laughable. I only had 2 or 3 teachers my whole entire school career that actually pushed me to learn and they didn't get anywhere close to that much. It's a shame what school has become, nothing but a bunch of ego trips with a curriculum.

If you are a teacher and you love to teach for the right reason money shouldn't be the perk of the job, it should be the wisdom imparted onto the students. 100k would be suitable for a college professor in my opinion, but not a K-12 teacher.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Bunyipboy
 


Not really making a point. Just had to and my smart ass comment. Sorry.
But thanks for taking it in stride.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join