This is what happens........Follow

That's odd spin given that you were the one just proven wrong. I have not claimed that teachers don't put in a full work day. I have argued against the claim that they work significantly more hours than other workers. I have argued that a teacher earning base pay is teaching classes 2/3rds of the school day, which gives them plenty of time in an 8 hour workday to teach those classes *and* get their prep work and grading done. I have never argued that teachers just get to go home after 4 or 5 hours and slack off at home or anything.



What is relevant is that teachers don't work significantly longer work days than any other full time worker yet they *also* only work 190ish days a year compared to 230ish days for normal full time workers. Thus, it's wrong to claim that they are overworked and underpaid. And guess what? The source you found confirmed that I was right and you were wrong. So I'm not sure why you're still arguing.




Oh god! Not this again. So is everyone else. Deal with it. Teachers are not special in this regard. If those numbers are just time on campus and don't include hours working from home, then the same can be said for other professions as well. WTF? Any claim you can make about teachers taking home work can be said about most other full time salaried professions. You think no one else does this?



You missed the part where I explained that said average was the average including both part and full time workers. Whereas a similar number reported for teachers includes just teachers, the overwhelming majority of whom are full time. If we look just at full time workers, depending on source, you start getting numbers more like 45-46 hours per week.



A post which included source links to the BLS. Whatever. I can link to a survey done by Microsoft (examining workplace efficiency) in which officer workers reported working an average of 45 hours a week if you want. Or another one study showing an average of 46 hours per week for full time professionals (can't remember the exact source for that).

When I post a link, it's usually after searching and finding several different corroborating sources of data out there. I include the one with the "best" information (in this case, the source had links to "official" data, which is stronger than just survey results). I was giving you the best case for your side. I absolutely could link to a dozen sources with much higher numbers if I wanted to.



Yes. And 41.5 is more than 40. I'm not sure why you think there's a discrepancy there. Also "not unusual" isn't a very accurate statement, is it? So if one in 5 teachers works 50 hours a week, that's "not unusual", right? But if the other 4 each work 38 hours, don't we still come out with an average that's just a bit over 40? Why yes, we do!

Which is precisely the point I've been making all along. Teachers who don't take on extra classes or extracurricular activities certainly can end out working less than 40 hours each week on average. Most school days are 6.5-7 hours long. Teachers tend to have to get to school about 15 minutes before class starts, and depending on whether they're teaching final period, may or may not have to stay 15 minutes after to close up the classroom (of course, they *can* come in earlier and stay later, but that's their choice). The point is that a teacher only teaching the base units can work less than 8 hours a day, still get all their grading done and all their prep work done as well. In theory, if they don't teach first or last period, they can come in later and leave earlier as well. That depends on the policies of the school district they are in.



Lol! Yeah. Do you know how often those deadlines or design standards may require extra hours? Um... Pretty much every single week. Teachers never have to work longer hours than they choose to. There are very few external and unpredictable factors which may require them to work late into the night, or over the weekend. This happens to engineers all the time (heck. It happens to a lot of other professions).



Sure. It's pretty comparable though, isn't it? Remember what started this? I said that teachers made "slightly less" than <list of other professions>. Also recall that the averages and medians we're playing with for teachers are the "base pay" numbers. I've already explained at great length that most teacher can and do increase that pay.

What you're doing is still picking the best in one direction and in the other, even when they don't match up. The average hours is the actual reported average hours actually worked by teachers on the job. But the pay rates are calculations based on the pay ladders used for public school teacher pay, and assumes a less than full teaching schedule (or I should say that a "full" teaching schedule assumes teaching about 2/3rds of the class time during each school day). But most teachers (especially high school and middle school) teach more than that base number. The "average hours" figure takes this into account, but the "average pay" calculation does not.

When we do, we realize that teachers often make another 18-30% more salary than is listed (without working any more total weeks). Add that to the 21% more their salary is "worth" due to less weeks worked per year, and they are better compensated than most other fields which require the same amount of education.

I've only explained this logic like 5 times in this thread so far. And so far you haven't actually presented a single fact which refutes what I've said. Which makes one wonder why I have to keep repeating myself here.

I thought full time could be considered at 35 hours a week, or is that just what some employers go by?

Gbaji you remind me of the people in Battlestar Galactica who objected to a kindergarten teacher being president.

You wouldn't prefer them to someone who spends that much time around politicians?

[EDIT]


This is why it isn't even worth debating this with you (y'know, ignoring the fact that you were never going to get it anyway). And ignoring how wrong you are. And the fact that you consistently fail to link ANY sources other than your personal anecdotes.

A 20k difference isn't a comparable salary. At all. For 99% of the population. There are people that only make 20k a year in this nation, working full time. Hell, a full-time minimum wage job in NJ is only 15k a year before taxes.

The fact that you can't understand that just shows how completely out of touch with the universe you are.

Edited, May 12th 2011 3:34pm by idiggory

5 year olds still have a sense of justice. :P

I'm sensing kindergarten teacher issues with you Moe. Is there a back story you'd like to share?

I've linked as many, if not more sources than anyone else in this thread. You just ignore sources when they don't tell you what you already believe to be true.



Sigh. Didn't read what I wrote... again. I'm taking into account that the figures you are using are the "base pay" figures. Those are based on the pay that teachers will get if they teach no additional courses, don't coach/mentor any extracurricular activities, and don't teach any summer or evening classes. As I have explained numerous times, teachers actually work far fewer total hours per year than other full time workers, so they have the extra time to do any of those things, and many of them do. This means that the actual comparable pay for teachers is higher than that reported. How much higher on average? I have no clue. But it will be "higher" than the numbers you're tossing around.

Even if we just calculate directly based on the shorter work year, we still end out whittling that difference down to more like $10k. That certainly falls in the category of "slightly less than". I'll do the math for you if you really want, but it's not that hard.



You're kidding, right? I'm telling you how things actually are. And even despite the BLS site saying that teachers can bring in additional income on top of the estimated base pay figures provided, you still want to pretend that the base numbers are all there is.

Go talk to teachers. Ask them how many extra classes or activities they teach. You'll be hard pressed to find any teacher at a level above grade school who doesn't do this. It's a significant number, but you want to ignore it. And you want to ignore the better benefits as well. You basically want to ignore anything that works in favor of the teacher compensation. I guess I just don't understand what advantage you think you gain by lying to yourself. You have to know somewhere inside your brain that you're doing this, so why do it?

Ideology.

82000 - 76590 = 10000?!

That's some all-pro math.

And again, that's top teacher salaries versus median civil engineer salaries. But I know you don't really care. Teachers are bad, right? Om nom nommin' that government cheese. And nobody knows teachers and child development better than an aging bachelor.



Edited, May 16th 2011 6:20pm by bsphil

And for the record (and to repeat this again since you obviously missed/ignored it), the biggest complaint from actual teachers (when they're not prompted/required by their unions to say otherwise) isn't pay or benefits, but the bureaucracy they constantly have to deal with in order to do their jobs. They complain about the ridiculous requirements placed on them. The absurd standards they have to teach to. The constant sense that someone who's 5 levels removed from actually teaching is telling them how to manage their classes on a daily basis. The hoops they have to go through to get funding for anything. That's where the real costs of education end out getting eaten up. It's not teacher pay. It's the overhead of our public school system, and the constant dithering and changing of minds that goes on about how to best educate our children.


That's what teachers hate. Not the pay. Not the hours. But that's not what the unions care about, so that never seems to be what is debated about politically. Instead, we sit around debating how much they're paid while ignoring the far more important problems in our education system.


But it's not like this is the first case of misdirection when it comes to public services, and it's certainly not the last.

I'm not. Have you just not been paying attention or something?

"Not intended to be a factual statement".