‘Exhausted and underpaid’: teachers across the US are leaving their jobs(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
‘Exhausted and underpaid’: teachers across the US are leaving their jobs
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/04/teachers-quitting-jobs-covid-record-numbers
93 comments
What other jobs are exempted from these restrictions though? Virtually every indoor worker is mandated to wear masks. And large employers will soon be required to mandate vaccination. There’s almost no where to work that doesn’t have restrictions in the US.
It isn't like this everywhere in the US.
The US CDC says to require masks for all areas with substantial spread, which is most of the US right now, and OSHA is working on a nation-wide vaccination mandate right now.
Like remote works?
It's shameful the article does not contrast states with and without COVID restrictions. Instead it just "decides" it's lack of COVID restrictions, cherry picks some states and publishes.
And then the media wonders why people don't trust them.
And then the media wonders why people don't trust them.
I doubt people are leaving due to the restrictions. I personally think the headaches dealing with parents has more to do with it.
I personally watched a school board meeting in our county devolve into a circus. I couldn't believe that suburban middle-class parents would openly talk about crazy conspiracy theories.
If I were a teacher and had to deal with parents complaining about mask mandates, vaccines, and on top of that had to deal with the extra work of in person and remote learning, I too would quit.
I personally watched a school board meeting in our county devolve into a circus. I couldn't believe that suburban middle-class parents would openly talk about crazy conspiracy theories.
If I were a teacher and had to deal with parents complaining about mask mandates, vaccines, and on top of that had to deal with the extra work of in person and remote learning, I too would quit.
Worse, they've got two sets of outraged, unhinged parents to deal with. There's the ones who want no masks and no vaccine mandates for their kids. And there's the ones who want their kids to never, ever be exposed to anyone who isn't vaccinated and isn't wearing a mask. And there is absolutely nothing that the teachers or the school board can do to fix this.
(Note that this is true regardless of what you think of the correctness of either position.)
(Note that this is true regardless of what you think of the correctness of either position.)
I think there is a general trend of "front line" folks being stuck with the burden of other people's decisions.
Maybe it's always been true to some extent, but "standardized processes" have made it much worse because nobody in an org can even think for themselves anymore, they just have to take crap for some committee decision.
One of the best examples is Uber (the most consumer and employee hostile company outside of Canadian telcos) where, regardless of the problem, your only recourse is to give th driver (or restaurant) a bad rating, or withhold tip, when almost all problems actually originate with corporate uber.
It's the same thing here - you can't blame the teachers, but its certainly not fair that there is no other recourse for stupid policies (for the individual's definition or stupid)
Maybe it's always been true to some extent, but "standardized processes" have made it much worse because nobody in an org can even think for themselves anymore, they just have to take crap for some committee decision.
One of the best examples is Uber (the most consumer and employee hostile company outside of Canadian telcos) where, regardless of the problem, your only recourse is to give th driver (or restaurant) a bad rating, or withhold tip, when almost all problems actually originate with corporate uber.
It's the same thing here - you can't blame the teachers, but its certainly not fair that there is no other recourse for stupid policies (for the individual's definition or stupid)
It is ironic that for years teachers complained that parents did not care about their children's education, treated the schools has babysitters, etc.
Then the parents get wind of some of the things being taught in schools, take exception to it, and now they are conspiracy theorists or worst terrorists for wanting to have a say in their child's education.
Then the parents get wind of some of the things being taught in schools, take exception to it, and now they are conspiracy theorists or worst terrorists for wanting to have a say in their child's education.
Experts in <field> dislike it when laypeople treat <field> as unimportant and disregard it, also get even more upset when—still paying little attention to it but jumping on nonsense spouted by propagandists—laypeople pretend to know more about <field> then experts while undermining it by parroting dumbass conspiracy theories they are fed about <field>.
Seems perfectly normal, and common across fields of expertise, not “ironic” in any way.
Seems perfectly normal, and common across fields of expertise, not “ironic” in any way.
I always love the hand-wave of Conspiracy Theory to label everything these days
It is not "Conspiracy Theory" when you have actual evidence, video evidence no less, and official statements from national organizations, and paper records all supporting the claims.
It is not "Conspiracy Theory" when you have actual evidence, video evidence no less, and official statements from national organizations, and paper records all supporting the claims.
We're probably not talking about anything that has "actual evidence".
So the many many videos of teachers talking about all the things they do in class rooms, statements from the NEA, recording taken from the Remote Learning classrooms are not evidence?
Remember that is what started all of this, at the start of COVID both parents and students where home at the same time, and many parents started to observe their childs lessons in real time since they were conducted via remote learning.
This is what got the ball rolling as parents where shocked and alarmed at what they were hearing with their own ears coming from some of these "teachers"
Remember that is what started all of this, at the start of COVID both parents and students where home at the same time, and many parents started to observe their childs lessons in real time since they were conducted via remote learning.
This is what got the ball rolling as parents where shocked and alarmed at what they were hearing with their own ears coming from some of these "teachers"
Education is a parent's/ a community's job. Instruction is a teacher job. If Parent don't agree with the programs (which they of course read), they are free to choose another school or to teach their kids home.
School programs ARE flawed, whether it's science (even math course are!) or non-science. This is a trade-off, accuracy losses against information speed and time spent in problem resolution.
I've heard two years ago that the US is becoming a bit too grade-centric and that problem resolution is not a valued skills anymore pre-college, due to decisions in the ministry under Bush-Clinton-Bush administrations, but my point is valid for most of europe
School programs ARE flawed, whether it's science (even math course are!) or non-science. This is a trade-off, accuracy losses against information speed and time spent in problem resolution.
I've heard two years ago that the US is becoming a bit too grade-centric and that problem resolution is not a valued skills anymore pre-college, due to decisions in the ministry under Bush-Clinton-Bush administrations, but my point is valid for most of europe
>> they are free to choose another school
I wish that were the case, I fully support School Choice, and a Voucher system that will put the money in the hands of parents to make the choice best for their child instead of only having school choice be an option for the wealthy
I wish that were the case, I fully support School Choice, and a Voucher system that will put the money in the hands of parents to make the choice best for their child instead of only having school choice be an option for the wealthy
homeschooling is a choice available too, and i'll tell you one thing: most homeschooled kids i worked with were from poor families, almost always single-income and often with this income being close to minimum wage. Mostly rural (or rather in small, 100 to 500 hab towns).
The context in which i met them was great, and their parent had to be involved to put them there, so i guess i received the "best" examples of homschooled kids in my area, but they did not have any major issue (often missing some in STEM knowledge, but all of them with a logical/creative mind that make learning hisghschool math a breeze, and anyway, our association was there for this exact issue)
The context in which i met them was great, and their parent had to be involved to put them there, so i guess i received the "best" examples of homschooled kids in my area, but they did not have any major issue (often missing some in STEM knowledge, but all of them with a logical/creative mind that make learning hisghschool math a breeze, and anyway, our association was there for this exact issue)
I would like to see some of the money from a voucher be allowed to be spent on Home Schooling resources and technology, Provide computers, internet, books, etc all in some way under the same School Choice Voucher system
Vouchers with for-profit school corps?
Yes? and coop's, Learning Hubs, Money for Home Schooling resources, etc etc etc
Unlike many here I am not opposed to capitalism
Unlike many here I am not opposed to capitalism
It's been a disaster in the few places it's been tried. Chile (since abolished) and currently in Sweden. It very obviously causes the school corps to cut costs by various means that have a negative societal impact.
For example by giving undeservedly high grades that upper-middle class seemingly happily accept to get their kids into high-status high education. These grades then conveniently becomes part of their marketing.
An even more sinister example is their willingness to actively segregate their schools to have "easy", as in cheap, students that don't require as much resources (like actual teachers) as people - on average - from less privileged backgrounds.
For example by giving undeservedly high grades that upper-middle class seemingly happily accept to get their kids into high-status high education. These grades then conveniently becomes part of their marketing.
An even more sinister example is their willingness to actively segregate their schools to have "easy", as in cheap, students that don't require as much resources (like actual teachers) as people - on average - from less privileged backgrounds.
I suggest people look up how much teachers make in their area, especially starting salaries. Where I live, in a major metro area where single-family homes average $400k (and climbing), teachers- a profession that requires a college degree- start at $32k. Embarrassing.
>a profession that requires a college degree- start at $32k. Embarrassing.
I remember a piece in the San Jose Mercury News (I've referenced this before, but haven't been able to locate it. I expect it was never put online) from back in 2000 about full-time public school teachers living in San Jose homeless shelters because they couldn't afford to rent or buy in the city where they worked.
I expect that in expensive areas, teachers still need to commute hours to work if they want to teach there.
That's appalling to me. Given that teachers, second only to parents, have enormous impact on the development of our children.
I remember a piece in the San Jose Mercury News (I've referenced this before, but haven't been able to locate it. I expect it was never put online) from back in 2000 about full-time public school teachers living in San Jose homeless shelters because they couldn't afford to rent or buy in the city where they worked.
I expect that in expensive areas, teachers still need to commute hours to work if they want to teach there.
That's appalling to me. Given that teachers, second only to parents, have enormous impact on the development of our children.
Clearly, children are not a valuable resource. They are just not productive enough to be important in our society. /s
It's one of the biggest areas of age discrimination out there -- unions negotiating tiny starting pay for new members so they can give continuous increases to older members. They give them the worst classrooms, too. Teacher pay overall is just fine.
Your comment is misleading and I'm hoping it's not intentional.
As with anything in the bizarre municipal-county-state-federal labyrinth that constitutes the US public school system, things vary dramatically from place to place. One issue with many districts' pay tables is that they have too few steps, which is not good for "older members." As someone who was a public school teacher for six years, I also think many teachers would challenge your opinion that "teacher pay overall is just fine."
I'd like to see data on places where, as you imply, unions decide who gets the "worst classrooms" - when I was teaching in Chicago Public Schools, I heard that was once the case in a bygone era. Is this actually happening in 2021?
As with anything in the bizarre municipal-county-state-federal labyrinth that constitutes the US public school system, things vary dramatically from place to place. One issue with many districts' pay tables is that they have too few steps, which is not good for "older members." As someone who was a public school teacher for six years, I also think many teachers would challenge your opinion that "teacher pay overall is just fine."
I'd like to see data on places where, as you imply, unions decide who gets the "worst classrooms" - when I was teaching in Chicago Public Schools, I heard that was once the case in a bygone era. Is this actually happening in 2021?
If pay overall is ok, is the issue wage inequity?
Maybe it is more interesting to see the rising housing prices as the real problem, instead of the salaries themselves.
Housing and Healthcare the 2 expenses that single handedly make America unaffordable. Food, travel and everyday activities are affordable enough. 4 year Student loans can be kept under $50k, if you work part-time to offset living costs and go to state schools.
$32k is criminally low, but the $60k number doesn't sound that bad to start. The US is large, and land is practically free. If the US just gets its act together, and starts building dense housing, they can offset a huge part of this divide. Ofc, they won't do that, but it is important to make the distinction between salaries being too low, and houses being too expensive for no good reason.
Housing and Healthcare the 2 expenses that single handedly make America unaffordable. Food, travel and everyday activities are affordable enough. 4 year Student loans can be kept under $50k, if you work part-time to offset living costs and go to state schools.
$32k is criminally low, but the $60k number doesn't sound that bad to start. The US is large, and land is practically free. If the US just gets its act together, and starts building dense housing, they can offset a huge part of this divide. Ofc, they won't do that, but it is important to make the distinction between salaries being too low, and houses being too expensive for no good reason.
A big problem is, at least in CA, the rates of pay don't tend to change much from area to area. 32k might be livable in Blithe, but not so much in the bay area.
I'm not saying teachers are fairly compensated, just that you'd probably have to determine compensation county by county
I'm not saying teachers are fairly compensated, just that you'd probably have to determine compensation county by county
Most of the people here simply don't care that most of their peers are languishing at 1/2, 1/3, 1/4 their starting salary, years into their careers, despite engaging with our education system equally. In fact, I think HNers secretly revel in that fact. What's the saying? It's a feature, not a bug.
I suggest you look closer...
First off First year teacher can be paid pretty low depending on what grade it is, and if they are even working full time. Many first year teachers are not full time
In my city where the median Household is somewhere around 55K, there are several high school teachers making 80K+
I would urge you to look up the actual salaries for teachers with more than 3 years experience, most teacher salaries are part of the public records, there are databases out there that will show individual salaries.
If we are going to debate if teachers are underpaid we need to start with an actual fact base.
Finally the fact the position requires a degree has no bearing on the rate of pay.
First off First year teacher can be paid pretty low depending on what grade it is, and if they are even working full time. Many first year teachers are not full time
In my city where the median Household is somewhere around 55K, there are several high school teachers making 80K+
I would urge you to look up the actual salaries for teachers with more than 3 years experience, most teacher salaries are part of the public records, there are databases out there that will show individual salaries.
If we are going to debate if teachers are underpaid we need to start with an actual fact base.
Finally the fact the position requires a degree has no bearing on the rate of pay.
Last time I checked, the US was paying more per capita per student for education than any country in the world. And yet our education outcomes are consistently ranked poorly. I wonder where all the money is going.
> education outcomes are consistently ranked poorly. I wonder where all the money is going.
When comparing PISA scores, Asian Americans performed on par or better than Asian countries, white Americans did similarly well comparing against European countries/Canada/Australia, and so on. In other words, looking at PISA scores is misleading when comparing countries with high ethnic fractionalization against those with low fractionalization (like Iceland and Shenzhen China).
When comparing PISA scores, Asian Americans performed on par or better than Asian countries, white Americans did similarly well comparing against European countries/Canada/Australia, and so on. In other words, looking at PISA scores is misleading when comparing countries with high ethnic fractionalization against those with low fractionalization (like Iceland and Shenzhen China).
It's not the top, Luxembourg beats the US[0] at least in terms of OECD countries. We are also near the top in terms of primary, secondary and post-secondary broken out individually, so it isn't just that we spend a lot more for college.
[0]https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/5e4ecc25-en/index.html?i...
[0]https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/5e4ecc25-en/index.html?i...
It's being paid very unevenly, because of our structure of funding schools primarily out of local property taxes.
We spend lots of money on education for students in wealthy districts.
We spend way less on education for students in poor districts.
We spend lots of money on education for students in wealthy districts.
We spend way less on education for students in poor districts.
This isn't true at all. Some of the worst school districts in the country spend the most on a per student basis. Spending is not correlated with educational outcomes. Baltimore City for example spends like 18k per student and has very poor outcomes. Private school tuition on average only costs like 13k per year per student in Maryland.
https://www.baltimorecityschools.org/setting-the-record-stra... under "March 9, 2021"/"We do not have the 4th highest per pupil spending in the US" points out:
> There are more than 13,000 school districts in the nation; Baltimore ranks at about 2,400 in per-pupil spending in the overall group. ...
> Baltimore’s spending is comparable to other Maryland districts but falls short of adequacy when factoring in the composition of the district’s student population ...
> o Baltimore has the highest concentrations of students in poverty and the highest percentage of students with disabilities in the state.
> o By the state’s own analysis, City Schools should have received $290 million more each year under the current formula.
> o A state-commissioned report indicates the district needs $358 million more to ensure adequacy for the city’s students.
On average, disabled students cost more to educate than non-disabled. Without knowing the distribution of students types in Baltimore City vs. private schools, a simple head-to-head comparison is meaningless.
Finally, you didn't give a simple head-to-head comparison.
You compared costs for the public school (funding / number of students) with tuition (funding by students).
Private schools may also receive funding through other means, eg, state-funded scholarships, or subsidized use of public resources like land and buildings.
> There are more than 13,000 school districts in the nation; Baltimore ranks at about 2,400 in per-pupil spending in the overall group. ...
> Baltimore’s spending is comparable to other Maryland districts but falls short of adequacy when factoring in the composition of the district’s student population ...
> o Baltimore has the highest concentrations of students in poverty and the highest percentage of students with disabilities in the state.
> o By the state’s own analysis, City Schools should have received $290 million more each year under the current formula.
> o A state-commissioned report indicates the district needs $358 million more to ensure adequacy for the city’s students.
On average, disabled students cost more to educate than non-disabled. Without knowing the distribution of students types in Baltimore City vs. private schools, a simple head-to-head comparison is meaningless.
Finally, you didn't give a simple head-to-head comparison.
You compared costs for the public school (funding / number of students) with tuition (funding by students).
Private schools may also receive funding through other means, eg, state-funded scholarships, or subsidized use of public resources like land and buildings.
Can you cite any study that shows that educational outcomes are positively correlated with spending even after adjusting for disabilities?
No. I'm not an education policy wonk.
(Plus, I don't see how the answer is not "yes". If we pay enough for a 1:5 teacher:student ratio then we'll almost certainly get better educational outcomes, yes? Which means I don't understand your question.)
I'm only pointing out what I believe are large methodological weaknesses in your earlier comment.
(Plus, I don't see how the answer is not "yes". If we pay enough for a 1:5 teacher:student ratio then we'll almost certainly get better educational outcomes, yes? Which means I don't understand your question.)
I'm only pointing out what I believe are large methodological weaknesses in your earlier comment.
Many wealthy areas dump their money into private schools and therefore don’t support high millage property taxes for public education. If you look around in Ohio at least, this generally evens the spending out on a per pupil basis.
The biggest differences are generally between rural and urban districts.
The biggest differences are generally between rural and urban districts.
> The biggest differences are generally between rural and urban districts.
Huh. I would characterize this more like "suburban vs. everything else, with some urban exceptions".
City schools have extreme bifurcations depending on their inputs; Boston Latins and Lane Techs exist but are notable precisely because they're exceptions to the general rule that city school systems aren't great.
Suburban schools are generally OK. Never nearly as good as the local population seems to think, but whatever.
Rural schools are uniformly horrible (but at least not as bad as the bad side of the bifurcated urban schools).
At least, that's my understanding.
Huh. I would characterize this more like "suburban vs. everything else, with some urban exceptions".
City schools have extreme bifurcations depending on their inputs; Boston Latins and Lane Techs exist but are notable precisely because they're exceptions to the general rule that city school systems aren't great.
Suburban schools are generally OK. Never nearly as good as the local population seems to think, but whatever.
Rural schools are uniformly horrible (but at least not as bad as the bad side of the bifurcated urban schools).
At least, that's my understanding.
[deleted]
This is usually the case in the majority if not all government-managed sectors. Government tends to add many more layers of middle-men.
Surely enough countries also pay teachers via the government for this not to be a unique problem for us.
My company adds middle-men and they suck too.
The problem may be middle-men and not private vs public.
The problem may be middle-men and not private vs public.
That’s a good point. In the Education sector, I believe there are many private alternatives that are gaining traction and I suspect they are the disruption the public sector is looking for and will adopt eventually. Just like how many older companies entrenched in middle management have been getting disrupted.
Median pay in the US:
High school teacher: $62,870[0]
Middle school teacher: $60,810[1]
Elementary school teacher: $60,660[2]
Person with bachelors degree: $72,830[3]
Person with bachelors degree if they took summers off unpaid: $58,264[4]
[0]https://www.bls.gov/ooh/education-training-and-library/high-...
[1]https://www.bls.gov/ooh/education-training-and-library/middl...
[2]https://www.bls.gov/ooh/education-training-and-library/kinde...
[3]https://www.bls.gov/careeroutlook/2018/article/bachelors-deg...
[4]Summer vacation is 2.5 months. $72,830 * .80 = $58,264
Edit: cleaned up confusing language around averages
High school teacher: $62,870[0]
Middle school teacher: $60,810[1]
Elementary school teacher: $60,660[2]
Person with bachelors degree: $72,830[3]
Person with bachelors degree if they took summers off unpaid: $58,264[4]
[0]https://www.bls.gov/ooh/education-training-and-library/high-...
[1]https://www.bls.gov/ooh/education-training-and-library/middl...
[2]https://www.bls.gov/ooh/education-training-and-library/kinde...
[3]https://www.bls.gov/careeroutlook/2018/article/bachelors-deg...
[4]Summer vacation is 2.5 months. $72,830 * .80 = $58,264
Edit: cleaned up confusing language around averages
At least in California, teachers also get pension that is equal to their salary.
This is underappreciated. Think about what contributions one has to make to a self-funded retirement plan to acquire a pension equivalent to that available to teachers.
To expand, seriously, pretend that you are buying an annuity providing a guaranteed, life-long annual payout equivalent to a teacher's salary in your town. It's a slug of cash that will make you blush.
For example, https://www.bankrate.com/calculators/investing/annuity-calcu... tells me that a $30K/year annuity good for 30 years will require more than $500K of principal at a 4% growth rate. This is a coarse approximation.
For example, https://www.bankrate.com/calculators/investing/annuity-calcu... tells me that a $30K/year annuity good for 30 years will require more than $500K of principal at a 4% growth rate. This is a coarse approximation.
Your reference [0] under "Work Environment" says teachers have 2 months of summer holidays, not 2.5.
$72,830 * 10/12 = $60,691.
I couldn't tell from the data at [0] if that wage included all income for a high school teacher (eg, the teacher works during the summer for a non-school job, and that income is included in the wage), or only the teaching-related income.
The "Teachers’ work patterns: when, where, and how much do U.S. teachers work" from the BLS, at https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2008/03/art4full.pdf , 45% of teachers work in July, and more likely than similar professionals to have multiple jobs.
Assuming 50% education-related work during summer (instead of 0% work) means the comparable is:
Many people have studied this question, resulting in publications with conclusions which are all over the place, especially when looking at think-tank publications and other non-peer-reviewed literature. I have no belief that a simple analysis using the numbers you presented gives a reliable understanding.
$72,830 * 10/12 = $60,691.
I couldn't tell from the data at [0] if that wage included all income for a high school teacher (eg, the teacher works during the summer for a non-school job, and that income is included in the wage), or only the teaching-related income.
The "Teachers’ work patterns: when, where, and how much do U.S. teachers work" from the BLS, at https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2008/03/art4full.pdf , 45% of teachers work in July, and more likely than similar professionals to have multiple jobs.
Assuming 50% education-related work during summer (instead of 0% work) means the comparable is:
$72,830 * 11/12 = $66,760
Many people have studied this question, resulting in publications with conclusions which are all over the place, especially when looking at think-tank publications and other non-peer-reviewed literature. I have no belief that a simple analysis using the numbers you presented gives a reliable understanding.
Teachers don't have summers off. They engage in work-related training, administrative duties, and other labor (e.g., teaching summer school courses). They're also required to pay for far more of their required equipment than other professions. Only $250 of school supplies can be deducted if filing with the standard deduction.
This is a case of "just presenting the data" with a comically obvious agenda (per what's missing).
This is a case of "just presenting the data" with a comically obvious agenda (per what's missing).
Teaching summer school is paid, and various training are generally optional and/or paid. "Administrative duties" is nebulous.
Many do pay for various school supplies out of pocket, and I agree they should be reimbursed or have access to greater deductions.
They definitely have summers off though, so it is very odd to claim that they don't. It's plainly described in the employment contract in a traditional summers off (non-year round) schedule
Many do pay for various school supplies out of pocket, and I agree they should be reimbursed or have access to greater deductions.
They definitely have summers off though, so it is very odd to claim that they don't. It's plainly described in the employment contract in a traditional summers off (non-year round) schedule
The median pay includes those who teach summer school and earn extra money.
Therefore, median pay for teachers cannot be equivalent to someone with a bachelors degree and unpaid summers off.
Furthermore, the baseline should not be calendar days but hours worked. As willcipriano's own reference #1 points out, teachers "may also work evenings and weekends to prepare lessons and grade papers."
If teachers spend their afternoons doing extracurricular activities, and evenings and weekends for grading lesson planning, giving a 55 hour week[1], while the average for someone with a bachelors degree is 40 hours[2], then the HS teacher makes ~15% less per hour than the hypothetical median bachelors degree holder. [3]
[1] https://www.scholastic.com/primarysources/pdfs/Gates2012_ful... (from 9 years ago) says teachers spend 10 hours, 40 minutes at work.
[2] https://www.thebalancecareers.com/what-is-the-average-hours-... says "Those with a bachelor’s degree or higher worked 8.0 hours per day, while those with a high school diploma worked the most on an average day: 8.2 hours."
[3] HS teacher, $62870 / (39 weeks * 55 hours/week) = $30.40/hour. Median bachelor's degree holder: $72830 / (50 weeks * 40 hours/week) = $36.42/hour. (36.42 - 30.42) / 36.42 = 16.5%.
Therefore, median pay for teachers cannot be equivalent to someone with a bachelors degree and unpaid summers off.
Furthermore, the baseline should not be calendar days but hours worked. As willcipriano's own reference #1 points out, teachers "may also work evenings and weekends to prepare lessons and grade papers."
If teachers spend their afternoons doing extracurricular activities, and evenings and weekends for grading lesson planning, giving a 55 hour week[1], while the average for someone with a bachelors degree is 40 hours[2], then the HS teacher makes ~15% less per hour than the hypothetical median bachelors degree holder. [3]
[1] https://www.scholastic.com/primarysources/pdfs/Gates2012_ful... (from 9 years ago) says teachers spend 10 hours, 40 minutes at work.
[2] https://www.thebalancecareers.com/what-is-the-average-hours-... says "Those with a bachelor’s degree or higher worked 8.0 hours per day, while those with a high school diploma worked the most on an average day: 8.2 hours."
[3] HS teacher, $62870 / (39 weeks * 55 hours/week) = $30.40/hour. Median bachelor's degree holder: $72830 / (50 weeks * 40 hours/week) = $36.42/hour. (36.42 - 30.42) / 36.42 = 16.5%.
You'll need to include the expected payout of any defined benefit retirement plan as well to improve the quality of your comparison.
And working after hours / weekends is highly dependent on intrinsic motivation of the individual teacher. Many lower quality teachers successfully avoid much or all of that unpaid work, especially in situations where they have strong job protections (tenure)
And working after hours / weekends is highly dependent on intrinsic motivation of the individual teacher. Many lower quality teachers successfully avoid much or all of that unpaid work, especially in situations where they have strong job protections (tenure)
Certainly. My point is that the analysis presented here is far from complete. As I commented at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28826659 , "Many people have studied this question, resulting in publications with conclusions which are all over the place"
"Intrinsic motivation" means that individual teachers are being underpaid for their work, compared to market values.
Tenure doesn't really exist like your sketch. Teachers for grade N+1 really don't want unprepared students from grade N.
Even if it did, why should so-called "motivated" teachers do unpaid extracurricular work, and work from home in the evenings and weekends. Certainly if they used their motivation to get a part-time job they could make more money.
"Intrinsic motivation" means that individual teachers are being underpaid for their work, compared to market values.
Tenure doesn't really exist like your sketch. Teachers for grade N+1 really don't want unprepared students from grade N.
Even if it did, why should so-called "motivated" teachers do unpaid extracurricular work, and work from home in the evenings and weekends. Certainly if they used their motivation to get a part-time job they could make more money.
Agree with much of what you're saying
This is goalpoast-moving. You should include the average payout of retirement planning in the private sector, for comparison. I will be shocked if we find a substantial difference, or advantage to the teachers.
>Many lower quality teachers successfully avoid much or all of that unpaid work, especially in situations where they have strong job protections (tenure)
We'll need citation for this too.
>Many lower quality teachers successfully avoid much or all of that unpaid work, especially in situations where they have strong job protections (tenure)
We'll need citation for this too.
It's just part of the total comp calculation so it's a no-brainer to include in a good comparison.
And defined benefit plans are quite desireable and becoming rarer, and have tended to be more stable in the case of market downturns.
On the citation question, I don't have more to provide than experience from relatives who are teachers. It's quite well known that many bad teachers are quite entrenched, and those that realize their level of employment protection thread a good needle in terms of avoiding unpaid labor. It just requires caring about the job and results less, and many situations can push teachers towards feeling this way such as burnout (which can come from earnestly trying too hard and suffering from too many unpaid hours grading, etc.), the fact that there is basically no monetary incentive for good performance (everyone's on the same pay ladder generally based on level of education + years teaching), dysfunctional administration (at the school and/or district level), lack of good colleagues, etc.
And defined benefit plans are quite desireable and becoming rarer, and have tended to be more stable in the case of market downturns.
On the citation question, I don't have more to provide than experience from relatives who are teachers. It's quite well known that many bad teachers are quite entrenched, and those that realize their level of employment protection thread a good needle in terms of avoiding unpaid labor. It just requires caring about the job and results less, and many situations can push teachers towards feeling this way such as burnout (which can come from earnestly trying too hard and suffering from too many unpaid hours grading, etc.), the fact that there is basically no monetary incentive for good performance (everyone's on the same pay ladder generally based on level of education + years teaching), dysfunctional administration (at the school and/or district level), lack of good colleagues, etc.
I want you to understand how terribly unconvincing this is. You seem to have an agenda, but not necessarily the facts to support it, so you're engaging with hand-wave-y generalization and, "Just trust me"-level rhetoric.
This conversation began with concrete numbers, and if you want the initial presumption to stand you're going to have to end with them, too.
This conversation began with concrete numbers, and if you want the initial presumption to stand you're going to have to end with them, too.
What’s the point that you are trying to make here? Are you suggesting that teachers in the United States are overpaid?
Providing the info for others to decide for themselves, personally I wouldn't call them underpaid or overpaid, the compensation seems in line with the rest of the market for their level of education.
Perhaps that schools should just be open year round? That would also be a huge benefit to working parents (particularly mothers) who, you know, don’t get summers off.
Ah yes the "just the facts please" argument, regardless of context.
Turns out getting a teacher cred is a little bit more than "just" getting a undergrad, and has ongoing licensing requirements.
On one hand, kudos to the OP for using median rather than average, but still a single number to represent all teach jobs in a country with 300M people seems a bit weak. There's a lot of stories out there, and it's just not being captured here.
"Data data everywhere, but not an ounce of wisdom within sight" -- old proverb
Turns out getting a teacher cred is a little bit more than "just" getting a undergrad, and has ongoing licensing requirements.
On one hand, kudos to the OP for using median rather than average, but still a single number to represent all teach jobs in a country with 300M people seems a bit weak. There's a lot of stories out there, and it's just not being captured here.
"Data data everywhere, but not an ounce of wisdom within sight" -- old proverb
Lots of occupations require ongoing licensing requirements. What’s the big deal?
For example barbers in Ohio need 8 CE credits per year. (No connection, just chose a middle of the road state at random)
https://cos.ohio.gov/CONTINUING-EDUCATION/BARBER/CONTINUING-...
For example barbers in Ohio need 8 CE credits per year. (No connection, just chose a middle of the road state at random)
https://cos.ohio.gov/CONTINUING-EDUCATION/BARBER/CONTINUING-...
willcipriano's reference was to "Person with bachelors degree".
ryanobjc's objection is that the reference should be "Person with bachelors degree in a job which requires a state license and CE requirements."
FWIW, your reference appears to be 8 CE credits every two years = 4 credits per year for barbers.
https://learn.org/articles/ohio_certification_licensure_for_... says educators need 18 units every 4 or 5 years, which is also about 4 credits per year.
Getting to the main topic, 4 credits/year is about 40 hours/year. When do educators do that? Is it paid time or unpaid time?
BTW, many teachers have a Master's degree, so I think using a bachelor's degree as the baseline isn't correct.
ryanobjc's objection is that the reference should be "Person with bachelors degree in a job which requires a state license and CE requirements."
FWIW, your reference appears to be 8 CE credits every two years = 4 credits per year for barbers.
https://learn.org/articles/ohio_certification_licensure_for_... says educators need 18 units every 4 or 5 years, which is also about 4 credits per year.
Getting to the main topic, 4 credits/year is about 40 hours/year. When do educators do that? Is it paid time or unpaid time?
BTW, many teachers have a Master's degree, so I think using a bachelor's degree as the baseline isn't correct.
ryanobjc: > Turns out getting a teacher cred is a little bit more than "just" getting a undergrad, and has ongoing licensing requirements.
Plenty of occupations as a class or specific jobs have education, certification and licensing requirements. Teaching is not an outlier in that regard. The barber is just one example of a mundane ongoing requirement.
When do educators fulfill their CE credits? My guess is whenever they want as long as it happens on time. They can be grown ups like the rest of the world, conduct their business and move on.
What percentage of teachers have a Master's degree? If it isn't a job requirement, why would it matter? If there are excess numbers of people holding Masters degrees and they work in occupations not requiring a Masters degree, that is a problem between them and their granting institution's accreditation body.
The smart accreditation bodies restrict supply in order to optimize the workforce size and skillset to demand. The nonselective ones that produce skills in excess of demand are essentially diploma mills or vanity projects. At best they make entry into non-Masters degree fields harder for those without the resources to obtain a Masters. At worst they wind up being a giant economic drag through student debt that won't ever match income expectations.
Plenty of occupations as a class or specific jobs have education, certification and licensing requirements. Teaching is not an outlier in that regard. The barber is just one example of a mundane ongoing requirement.
When do educators fulfill their CE credits? My guess is whenever they want as long as it happens on time. They can be grown ups like the rest of the world, conduct their business and move on.
What percentage of teachers have a Master's degree? If it isn't a job requirement, why would it matter? If there are excess numbers of people holding Masters degrees and they work in occupations not requiring a Masters degree, that is a problem between them and their granting institution's accreditation body.
The smart accreditation bodies restrict supply in order to optimize the workforce size and skillset to demand. The nonselective ones that produce skills in excess of demand are essentially diploma mills or vanity projects. At best they make entry into non-Masters degree fields harder for those without the resources to obtain a Masters. At worst they wind up being a giant economic drag through student debt that won't ever match income expectations.
> Plenty of occupations as a class or specific jobs have education, certification and licensing requirements.
Completely agreed. So we should expect their salaries to be higher on average than jobs with the same education requirement but without certification and licensing requirements, right?
> If it isn't a job requirement
Some districts pay more for teachers with a Master's degree. Eg, https://www.teachingdegree.org/states/florida/ says "Florida teacher salary can increase to $59,050 for educators with a master's degree and 20+ years of experience."
The smart accreditation bodies optimize workforce competency by incentivizing increased relevant training.
> My guess is whenever they want as long as it happens on time.
Sure. But I'm making a rather different point.
As you likely recall, willcipriano compared a teacher's summer break as being equivalent to "bachelors degree if they took summers off unpaid."
If the teacher does a week of continuing education during the summer, then that comparison (and calculation) is invalid, because the teacher is not "off".
Completely agreed. So we should expect their salaries to be higher on average than jobs with the same education requirement but without certification and licensing requirements, right?
> If it isn't a job requirement
Some districts pay more for teachers with a Master's degree. Eg, https://www.teachingdegree.org/states/florida/ says "Florida teacher salary can increase to $59,050 for educators with a master's degree and 20+ years of experience."
The smart accreditation bodies optimize workforce competency by incentivizing increased relevant training.
> My guess is whenever they want as long as it happens on time.
Sure. But I'm making a rather different point.
As you likely recall, willcipriano compared a teacher's summer break as being equivalent to "bachelors degree if they took summers off unpaid."
If the teacher does a week of continuing education during the summer, then that comparison (and calculation) is invalid, because the teacher is not "off".
Continuing Education:
Summers are still “off” even if CE is performed then if CE is considered a requirement of the profession not tied to a particular employment agreement. Funding for CE or anything else doesn’t come from magic. It comes from the value generated by a service provider.
An employer “providing” CE funding and/or time is really just skimming money that could be provider paycheck into CE. There may be pragmatic advantages to this such as volume pricing or tax rules.
My guess is that CE is a rounding error in the grand scheme of things. Should one expect occupations with higher licensing and CE requirements to have higher salaries than those without? Would the difference in pay be undetectable because it’s within the natural range of variability?
In terms of producer-consumer relations licensing acts as a signal of base quality for products that are difficult for consumers to evaluate. This may not mean that consumers will pay more for it if there is no option of a lower cost unlicensed product compared to a higher cost licensed one. In the absence of alternatives then it would be impossible to know what an unlicensed valuation would be.
Summers are still “off” even if CE is performed then if CE is considered a requirement of the profession not tied to a particular employment agreement. Funding for CE or anything else doesn’t come from magic. It comes from the value generated by a service provider.
An employer “providing” CE funding and/or time is really just skimming money that could be provider paycheck into CE. There may be pragmatic advantages to this such as volume pricing or tax rules.
My guess is that CE is a rounding error in the grand scheme of things. Should one expect occupations with higher licensing and CE requirements to have higher salaries than those without? Would the difference in pay be undetectable because it’s within the natural range of variability?
In terms of producer-consumer relations licensing acts as a signal of base quality for products that are difficult for consumers to evaluate. This may not mean that consumers will pay more for it if there is no option of a lower cost unlicensed product compared to a higher cost licensed one. In the absence of alternatives then it would be impossible to know what an unlicensed valuation would be.
"Off" seems to mean different things to you and me.
Suppose I am a teacher, and have two months where I don't teach students, but during those two months I take continuing education courses, and make lesson plans for the rest of the year, is that "off" in the same way that someone who takes two months from work to tour Europe is "off"?
If so, we have an irreconcilable disagreement on basic definitions.
My issue isn't 'An employer “providing” CE funding'.
My issue is that willcipriano didn't include that unpaid time in the comparison between a teacher and a hypothetical 'Person with bachelors degree'.
That is, I argue the calculation should not be based on calendar days, but on hours worked in order to have the career - both paid and unpaid.
> My guess is that CE is a rounding error in the grand scheme of things.
CE is a rounding error. Supporting extra-curricular activities is a rounding error. Grading in the evening is a rounding error. Doing lesson plans on the weekends is a rounding error.
But put them all together and it's no longer a rounding error.
Suppose I am a teacher, and have two months where I don't teach students, but during those two months I take continuing education courses, and make lesson plans for the rest of the year, is that "off" in the same way that someone who takes two months from work to tour Europe is "off"?
If so, we have an irreconcilable disagreement on basic definitions.
My issue isn't 'An employer “providing” CE funding'.
My issue is that willcipriano didn't include that unpaid time in the comparison between a teacher and a hypothetical 'Person with bachelors degree'.
That is, I argue the calculation should not be based on calendar days, but on hours worked in order to have the career - both paid and unpaid.
> My guess is that CE is a rounding error in the grand scheme of things.
CE is a rounding error. Supporting extra-curricular activities is a rounding error. Grading in the evening is a rounding error. Doing lesson plans on the weekends is a rounding error.
But put them all together and it's no longer a rounding error.
> "Off" seems to mean different things to you and me.
I don't think it is reconcilable. I'll offer: In this context "off" refers to time not spent in paid employment. Is that a fair definition?
My assertion: Spending time outside of paid employment to be able to retain paid employment or to gain improved compensation is not uncommon. My reference to a rounding error was not well written. The rounding error has to do with the difference between the effect of licensing on compensation and the natural variation in compensation between occupations. If license effect on compensation is small, then the comparison of teaching to other occupations requiring a bachelors degree without respect to licensing is valid.
Some of the difference in variability has to do with the standard compensation models different occupations chose in the early stage of the profession's development. As an example, nursing is principally compensated hourly rather than by salary. Outside of productivity improvements, when additional duties are required then there are choices of: less valuable duties are delegated to lower skilled workers, or less valuable duties are depreciated, or the amount of time budgeted increases.
For teachers on a salary any time spent on duties outside classroom hours is effectively a pay cut. Presumably this is a mechanism for less efficient teachers to realize their predicament and self-select out of the occupation.
I don't think it is reconcilable. I'll offer: In this context "off" refers to time not spent in paid employment. Is that a fair definition?
My assertion: Spending time outside of paid employment to be able to retain paid employment or to gain improved compensation is not uncommon. My reference to a rounding error was not well written. The rounding error has to do with the difference between the effect of licensing on compensation and the natural variation in compensation between occupations. If license effect on compensation is small, then the comparison of teaching to other occupations requiring a bachelors degree without respect to licensing is valid.
Some of the difference in variability has to do with the standard compensation models different occupations chose in the early stage of the profession's development. As an example, nursing is principally compensated hourly rather than by salary. Outside of productivity improvements, when additional duties are required then there are choices of: less valuable duties are delegated to lower skilled workers, or less valuable duties are depreciated, or the amount of time budgeted increases.
For teachers on a salary any time spent on duties outside classroom hours is effectively a pay cut. Presumably this is a mechanism for less efficient teachers to realize their predicament and self-select out of the occupation.
> Is that a fair definition?
No, it is not. The comparisons were "Person with bachelors degree" and "Person with bachelors degree if they took summers off unpaid".
In the context of teacher salaries, the phrase "summer off" always refers to having vacation time, not doing unpaid work. Eg, https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/time_off#English has "I've got some time off next week, so maybe we could meet up then?" with synonyms of "holiday" and "vacation".
Or, consider someone doing the single-person start-up thing, self-employed, not taking any income until things (hopefully) get off the ground ... then finding out that business model isn't successful, so finds a job. Is that person meaningfully "off" while working 15 hour days for a year?
> Presumably this is a mechanism for less efficient teachers to realize their predicament and self-select out of the occupation.
If you recall, the title is "‘Exhausted and underpaid’: teachers across the US are leaving their jobs" -- that's self-selecting out of the occupation.
But that doesn't mean that those who are left are more efficient. What if the people who are left are those who don't care about doing more than the bare minimum their job is worth, knowing it's hard to get fired because there aren't enough teachers available to replace them?
You get what you pay for.
No, it is not. The comparisons were "Person with bachelors degree" and "Person with bachelors degree if they took summers off unpaid".
In the context of teacher salaries, the phrase "summer off" always refers to having vacation time, not doing unpaid work. Eg, https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/time_off#English has "I've got some time off next week, so maybe we could meet up then?" with synonyms of "holiday" and "vacation".
Or, consider someone doing the single-person start-up thing, self-employed, not taking any income until things (hopefully) get off the ground ... then finding out that business model isn't successful, so finds a job. Is that person meaningfully "off" while working 15 hour days for a year?
> Presumably this is a mechanism for less efficient teachers to realize their predicament and self-select out of the occupation.
If you recall, the title is "‘Exhausted and underpaid’: teachers across the US are leaving their jobs" -- that's self-selecting out of the occupation.
But that doesn't mean that those who are left are more efficient. What if the people who are left are those who don't care about doing more than the bare minimum their job is worth, knowing it's hard to get fired because there aren't enough teachers available to replace them?
You get what you pay for.
"Person with bachelors degree if they took summers off unpaid"
> In this context "off" refers to time not spent in paid employment.
I don't see an appreciable difference between the two statements. Is your assertion that seasonal unemployment should be treated as a paid vacation?
Maybe it would be more accurate to describe teaching as a seasonal occupation rather than having "summers off." There are some similarities to seasonal labor underemployment in that the periods in which a seasonal firm doesn't operate are "A period of time where one is not required to work." Seasonal labor would fit that definition and also goes beyond in that work in that field is largely not available. I write "largely" since teacher acquaintances are able to find some work when schools are closed by teaching summer school, grading AP exams and various other work that requires a professional teacher but occurs outside the school year.
The critical part of separating "seasonal employment" from "paid vacation" is the employee's volition in setting the time period and duration of the time away from work. In many non-seasonal occupations a vacation may be scheduled by the employee and it is generally important for not all employees to be not working at the same time.
In the case of teaching, there are summer and other work closure periods which more closely resemble seasonal employment or maybe some manufacturing jobs that have periodic furloughs because the individual worker cannot choose when those periods occur.
> What if the people who are left are those who don't care about doing more than the bare minimum their job is worth
Performing to the required standard and not getting burned out seems like a positive vision for a workforce. It is especially important for one with little in the way promotional hierarchy to incentivize going above the standard in order to achieve higher renumeration.
> In this context "off" refers to time not spent in paid employment.
I don't see an appreciable difference between the two statements. Is your assertion that seasonal unemployment should be treated as a paid vacation?
Maybe it would be more accurate to describe teaching as a seasonal occupation rather than having "summers off." There are some similarities to seasonal labor underemployment in that the periods in which a seasonal firm doesn't operate are "A period of time where one is not required to work." Seasonal labor would fit that definition and also goes beyond in that work in that field is largely not available. I write "largely" since teacher acquaintances are able to find some work when schools are closed by teaching summer school, grading AP exams and various other work that requires a professional teacher but occurs outside the school year.
The critical part of separating "seasonal employment" from "paid vacation" is the employee's volition in setting the time period and duration of the time away from work. In many non-seasonal occupations a vacation may be scheduled by the employee and it is generally important for not all employees to be not working at the same time.
In the case of teaching, there are summer and other work closure periods which more closely resemble seasonal employment or maybe some manufacturing jobs that have periodic furloughs because the individual worker cannot choose when those periods occur.
> What if the people who are left are those who don't care about doing more than the bare minimum their job is worth
Performing to the required standard and not getting burned out seems like a positive vision for a workforce. It is especially important for one with little in the way promotional hierarchy to incentivize going above the standard in order to achieve higher renumeration.
I think teachers are being paid inline with their worth to society, neither overpaid nor underpaid on the whole. I am sure there are individual cases, or even regions where teachers are underpaid, or even overpaid. However on average I do not believe it is dire as the Teachers Unions would like to public to believe.
[deleted]
This is a huge lump of Boomers and some Gen X, who have enough years to retire already driving that change. It is a problem for now, but it should settle out over a few years as some younger folks with existing certification and new entrants come into the profession. Also the working conditions of many time consuming jobs were reflected on during the lockdowns and now many are rethinking how they wish to spend their days.
If I had to buy equipment with my own money to do my job, I'd quit too.
The American way of handling schools is just completely bonkers from over here, across the pond.
The American way of handling schools is just completely bonkers from over here, across the pond.
Here are teacher's salaries in CA.
https://calsalaries.com/job/teacher-salary
Average $97K.
I searched for an elementary school teacher, 1st Grade, in San Jose area to see a salary of $142.5K in 2019. Another teacher, 2nd Grade, had a salary of $141.6K in 2019.
To be honest, these don't seem too low to me.
Edit: Look at some of the salaries on the main page, $230K-$420K - I wonder who these teachers are in Elementary and High schools with such high salaries..
Edit2: Please note I'm not a teacher, nor do I have any family members who are teachers. I'm merely pointing to the data since I too was curious about it. I have no way of verifying that the data presented by that website is accurate.
https://calsalaries.com/job/teacher-salary
Average $97K.
I searched for an elementary school teacher, 1st Grade, in San Jose area to see a salary of $142.5K in 2019. Another teacher, 2nd Grade, had a salary of $141.6K in 2019.
To be honest, these don't seem too low to me.
Edit: Look at some of the salaries on the main page, $230K-$420K - I wonder who these teachers are in Elementary and High schools with such high salaries..
Edit2: Please note I'm not a teacher, nor do I have any family members who are teachers. I'm merely pointing to the data since I too was curious about it. I have no way of verifying that the data presented by that website is accurate.
I was a teacher in the Midwest before moving into programming. My salary was $28k. I worked in a larger city for a couple years and was making $35k for a while.
In order to afford student loan payments and rent, I worked three jobs. Still missed meals and was late in payments regularly.
The cities your mentioning are very high COL areas, and relatively affluent. Competition for those teaching positions is going to be very intense, and mostly go to senior teachers with at least 5-10 years experience. It's not representative of the nation.
In order to afford student loan payments and rent, I worked three jobs. Still missed meals and was late in payments regularly.
The cities your mentioning are very high COL areas, and relatively affluent. Competition for those teaching positions is going to be very intense, and mostly go to senior teachers with at least 5-10 years experience. It's not representative of the nation.
Having lived in Indiana for most of my life, and knowing folks who are teachers there still, I can vouch for the first statement.
Not so much the second though -- yes, these high salaries are in HCOL areas, but I'm not aware of crazy amount of competition to be a teacher even with those salaries. I'm now in Chicago, where teachers fresh out of college fetch about $60k in my district, and there's always plenty of openings.
Not so much the second though -- yes, these high salaries are in HCOL areas, but I'm not aware of crazy amount of competition to be a teacher even with those salaries. I'm now in Chicago, where teachers fresh out of college fetch about $60k in my district, and there's always plenty of openings.
It's definitely different depending on the state. In part because some states issue more teaching certificates per year. Michigan is one of those. At the time I was teaching, in around 2017, I had a friend get a job in Novi (Metro Detroit). The competition was pretty intense. See for example, [this posting](https://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/novi-community-s...) which had over 900 applicants.
It took me over a year after graduation to get a job, and I had applied to over 130 postings. I ended up finally getting a job in an inner city school.
The situation could very well have been very different in Chicago, though, depending on a lot of factors.
It took me over a year after graduation to get a job, and I had applied to over 130 postings. I ended up finally getting a job in an inner city school.
The situation could very well have been very different in Chicago, though, depending on a lot of factors.
Methodology here is opaque but clearly not systematic. (Also, it is mixing colleges and possibly other things with K-12, which is obvious from the detail lists.)
For more reliable data, go to the BLS, which is systematic. In CA:
Elementary teachers (except special ed), mean $85,100.
Kindergarten teachers (exc. special ed) $76,450.
Middle school teachers (exc. special ed and career/technical) $81,490.
Secondary school teachers (exc. special ed and career/technical) $86,900.
(And special ed and career/technical are lower in each category.)
https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_ca.htm
> Edit: Look at some of the salaries on the main page, $230K-$420K - I wonder who these teachers are in Elementary and High schools with such high salaries..
Probably bad data handling; since its deanonymized, its probably based on public employer data sets, which are often released in unstructured form and potentially listing different pay for the same employee separately; to try to deal with this, sometimes people merge records by name. Sometimes this is right. Sometimes this merges duplicated data or data for distinct but same first and last named individuals (being a CA public employee and having had family members who were, I’ve seen media (one step removed from the public release) data sets where my or other family members’ data was wrong or duplicated, and derived data sets where those errors were compounded.
For more reliable data, go to the BLS, which is systematic. In CA:
Elementary teachers (except special ed), mean $85,100.
Kindergarten teachers (exc. special ed) $76,450.
Middle school teachers (exc. special ed and career/technical) $81,490.
Secondary school teachers (exc. special ed and career/technical) $86,900.
(And special ed and career/technical are lower in each category.)
https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_ca.htm
> Edit: Look at some of the salaries on the main page, $230K-$420K - I wonder who these teachers are in Elementary and High schools with such high salaries..
Probably bad data handling; since its deanonymized, its probably based on public employer data sets, which are often released in unstructured form and potentially listing different pay for the same employee separately; to try to deal with this, sometimes people merge records by name. Sometimes this is right. Sometimes this merges duplicated data or data for distinct but same first and last named individuals (being a CA public employee and having had family members who were, I’ve seen media (one step removed from the public release) data sets where my or other family members’ data was wrong or duplicated, and derived data sets where those errors were compounded.
97k will qualify you for low income housing in San Jose.
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/72973/6...
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/72973/6...
97K is for the whole state. I don't know what the average salaries for San Jose are.. I just looked at two salaries, of 1st Grade and 2nd Grade teachers in San Jose and they were ~$142K which is not bad at all.
> I don't know what the average salaries for San Jose are..
From a source that, unlike yours, isn't completely opaque and unreliable, $92,500 for the highest paid segment (Secondary) of K-12 non-special ed teachers, $101,500 for secondary special ed, the absolutely highest of any K-12 category.
https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_41940.htm#25-0000
From a source that, unlike yours, isn't completely opaque and unreliable, $92,500 for the highest paid segment (Secondary) of K-12 non-special ed teachers, $101,500 for secondary special ed, the absolutely highest of any K-12 category.
https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_41940.htm#25-0000
that site seems use the word "salary" to refer to total compensation - the second highest (shown as a salary $315k) actually has a salary of $89k.
I assume the values for the San Jose teachers are also total compensation, not salary.
I assume the values for the San Jose teachers are also total compensation, not salary.
I live in Cali. My wife was a teacher. Her salary was nowhere near 97k.
the majority of this teachers live in the most populated parts of California, which are also the most expensive.
You also happen to have cherry picked the state with the best teacher pay in the nation, as mediocre as that is for such a high cost of living state. If you repeat your analysis in, for example, South Dakota, you'll find that the median teacher there is paid about $48k. That's not that far from the statutorily required minimum wage in San Jose.
You also happen to have cherry picked the state with the best teacher pay in the nation, as mediocre as that is for such a high cost of living state. If you repeat your analysis in, for example, South Dakota, you'll find that the median teacher there is paid about $48k. That's not that far from the statutorily required minimum wage in San Jose.
[deleted]
I expect this is true across low paid jobs. Organizations keep instituting more measures and burdens on workers and pretend they don't have a consequence.