Because teachers are very important to society and everything breaks down when kids can't be in school. And in my value system, since they get the short end of the stick on pretty much everything else. Doesn't mean my value system is the right one, it's just what I would pick if anyone asked me.sycasey said:Of course opening schools needs to be a top priority. But where is the evidence saying that they need vaccines to be safe? Virtually every public health organization says that vaccines are not a pre-requisite for safe schools, so why do teachers get to jump the line?SFBear92 said:With teachers, it's not about risk for me. It's about how once you can make the adults safe at school, it fixes a lot of problems for other people. Families that might have had to have a parent stay at home to watch their child can now pursue non-remote work if they need the extra income. Kids are back getting the social education they need and the personal attention they need.sycasey said:Why do you have teachers ahead of factory workers, prisoners, and retail workers here? What is the evidence that schools are riskier environments than those?SFBear92 said:There's no easy answer, but here's my priority list in order.OaktownBear said:Big C said:sycasey said:Most teachers I have spoken with this about also seem generally terrified of going back to in-person learning. Quoting the science to them does nothing to allay these fears (they always have a response about some other study that shows something else or why my referenced studies don't apply to their district). Seems like they're focused on vaccinations or bust. It's a little disturbing to me that so many of our educators are willing to throw scientific consensus out the window when it becomes useful to them personally.75bear said:
I hope you're right.
Yes, my wife is an OUSD Teacher. As an educator, she got a vaccine appt for tomorrow. Some of the staff got appts, but many did not. The issue is supply at this point.
She is one of only a few teachers who teach from school. 90% of the teachers teach from home. Many teachers on staff are terrified of going back in the classroom. Although many are like my wife and were ready to go back months ago.
It's so important to try and get some in-person school before summer - she and I both agree whatever reservations teachers have will be calmed after they are back for 1 week, similar to what every other school district around the country has experienced upon reopening.
OUSD is attempting to have class/subclass playdates at schools in the near future to promote a tiny bit of socialization. I give them credit for trying something, but it's telling they had to come up with an activity idea that didn't involve the teachers or Union agreement and was outside of the Union's jurisdiction (since it's after school hours) to even put this in place.
This is going to be a very uphill climb.
I saw this afternoon that Gabriella Lopez and the SF School Board is starting to backtrack now that they're facing a potential recall. That is a glimmer of hope.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/education/article/While-S-F-district-gives-a-school-tour-to-tout-15958291.php
sycasey, I am not referring to you or any other individual, but I think that anybody who might be making much more than what a teacher makes -- perhaps by multiples -- and is still able to work from home ought to think twice before, in the name of science, calling out teachers for wanting to get vaccinated before they come to work with a bunch of kids who often have yet to develop the self-control to socially distance for consecutive hours.
And this is why I say just vaccinate the teachers that are committing to return this year. Start with the 55+ and those with underlying conditions, then prioritize the rest. I know, I know: Vaccine shortage! Heck, we are sticking a million a week or so in California. Just get the teachers. It can be done and nobody's really going to complain about priorities if it's what gets the schools open again.
To be clear, teachers should get priority points. They should definitely be ahead of me in line. If I were a teacher, I would want a vaccine too. However, if I worked at a food processing plant, I'd want a vaccine and the fact that I was forced back to work months ago shouldn't make me go to the back.
Just stick the teachers ignores the fact that everyone you stick is someone else who isn't getting stuck. I'll be honest. I don't know who should go in what order. But it should be based on most susceptible population not most afraid. Susceptible includes both who is physically susceptible and who does tasks that expose them more. Should a healthy 65 year old who can isolate be ahead of a 40 year old teacher? I don't know. Should a teacher be ahead of a cop? I don't know. Food processing employee, I don't know. It isn't just an easy answer to give it to teachers
Nurses
Doctors
Nursing home patients
Nursing home staff (cause we gotta nip this nursing home issue)
Teachers and non-teaching staff (because they're as at risk as the teachers - same environment) and we really do need to get the younger kids back in school ASAP
People over 65 who didn't get the vaccine in one of the above groups or have some sort of pre-existing condition that makes them high-risk
Factory workers (meat processing plants, etc - close quarters type of work that has been a big issue)
Prisoners (because the jails have been a problem also)
Retail workers
Contractors (plumbers, construction, etc) - people who can't work remote
People over 50
After that, first come first served cause we're not getting it out fast enough and anybody who wants to take it should take it if there's supply not getting used.
I'm sure I missed something important, but that's off the top of my head.
I'm very concerned about the other people too, but getting the schools back open has to be a top priority.
Oakland Unified School District (OUSD)
49,981 Views |
483 Replies |
Last: 4 yr ago by smh
Sure, I am in support of teachers being ONE of the prioritized groups. That's not the issue. The question is exactly where in the priority line they should go and if reopening schools needs to be held up contingent on vaccinations for teachers (I would argue no, based on our best scientific understanding).SFBear92 said:Because teachers are very important to society and everything breaks down when kids can't be in school. And in my value system, since they get the short end of the stick on pretty much everything else. Doesn't mean my value system is the right one, it's just what I would pick if anyone asked me.sycasey said:Of course opening schools needs to be a top priority. But where is the evidence saying that they need vaccines to be safe? Virtually every public health organization says that vaccines are not a pre-requisite for safe schools, so why do teachers get to jump the line?SFBear92 said:With teachers, it's not about risk for me. It's about how once you can make the adults safe at school, it fixes a lot of problems for other people. Families that might have had to have a parent stay at home to watch their child can now pursue non-remote work if they need the extra income. Kids are back getting the social education they need and the personal attention they need.sycasey said:Why do you have teachers ahead of factory workers, prisoners, and retail workers here? What is the evidence that schools are riskier environments than those?SFBear92 said:There's no easy answer, but here's my priority list in order.OaktownBear said:Big C said:sycasey said:Most teachers I have spoken with this about also seem generally terrified of going back to in-person learning. Quoting the science to them does nothing to allay these fears (they always have a response about some other study that shows something else or why my referenced studies don't apply to their district). Seems like they're focused on vaccinations or bust. It's a little disturbing to me that so many of our educators are willing to throw scientific consensus out the window when it becomes useful to them personally.75bear said:
I hope you're right.
Yes, my wife is an OUSD Teacher. As an educator, she got a vaccine appt for tomorrow. Some of the staff got appts, but many did not. The issue is supply at this point.
She is one of only a few teachers who teach from school. 90% of the teachers teach from home. Many teachers on staff are terrified of going back in the classroom. Although many are like my wife and were ready to go back months ago.
It's so important to try and get some in-person school before summer - she and I both agree whatever reservations teachers have will be calmed after they are back for 1 week, similar to what every other school district around the country has experienced upon reopening.
OUSD is attempting to have class/subclass playdates at schools in the near future to promote a tiny bit of socialization. I give them credit for trying something, but it's telling they had to come up with an activity idea that didn't involve the teachers or Union agreement and was outside of the Union's jurisdiction (since it's after school hours) to even put this in place.
This is going to be a very uphill climb.
I saw this afternoon that Gabriella Lopez and the SF School Board is starting to backtrack now that they're facing a potential recall. That is a glimmer of hope.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/education/article/While-S-F-district-gives-a-school-tour-to-tout-15958291.php
sycasey, I am not referring to you or any other individual, but I think that anybody who might be making much more than what a teacher makes -- perhaps by multiples -- and is still able to work from home ought to think twice before, in the name of science, calling out teachers for wanting to get vaccinated before they come to work with a bunch of kids who often have yet to develop the self-control to socially distance for consecutive hours.
And this is why I say just vaccinate the teachers that are committing to return this year. Start with the 55+ and those with underlying conditions, then prioritize the rest. I know, I know: Vaccine shortage! Heck, we are sticking a million a week or so in California. Just get the teachers. It can be done and nobody's really going to complain about priorities if it's what gets the schools open again.
To be clear, teachers should get priority points. They should definitely be ahead of me in line. If I were a teacher, I would want a vaccine too. However, if I worked at a food processing plant, I'd want a vaccine and the fact that I was forced back to work months ago shouldn't make me go to the back.
Just stick the teachers ignores the fact that everyone you stick is someone else who isn't getting stuck. I'll be honest. I don't know who should go in what order. But it should be based on most susceptible population not most afraid. Susceptible includes both who is physically susceptible and who does tasks that expose them more. Should a healthy 65 year old who can isolate be ahead of a 40 year old teacher? I don't know. Should a teacher be ahead of a cop? I don't know. Food processing employee, I don't know. It isn't just an easy answer to give it to teachers
Nurses
Doctors
Nursing home patients
Nursing home staff (cause we gotta nip this nursing home issue)
Teachers and non-teaching staff (because they're as at risk as the teachers - same environment) and we really do need to get the younger kids back in school ASAP
People over 65 who didn't get the vaccine in one of the above groups or have some sort of pre-existing condition that makes them high-risk
Factory workers (meat processing plants, etc - close quarters type of work that has been a big issue)
Prisoners (because the jails have been a problem also)
Retail workers
Contractors (plumbers, construction, etc) - people who can't work remote
People over 50
After that, first come first served cause we're not getting it out fast enough and anybody who wants to take it should take it if there's supply not getting used.
I'm sure I missed something important, but that's off the top of my head.
I'm very concerned about the other people too, but getting the schools back open has to be a top priority.
Would it cause more problems than it solves? We have a two-tiered employee system. A union system of haves and a non-union system of have-nots. The unions resist healthcare for everybody else and drive up taxes for the non-union have-nots who have to pay taxes for the union employees who have better benefits and on-average, better pay.sycasey said:Agree completely. Unions haven't always been great on this issue, but they are not the primary opposition to national healthcare, not by a long shot. Unions have their problems, but abolishing them entirely would create more problems than it would solve.OaktownBear said:
You think unions do more to fight national healthcare than corporations? Especially those in the healthcare, pharmaceutical and insurance industries? Should we wipe all laws off the books allowing formation of corporations and the laws that support them?
Fight unions over every issue if you wish. Taking away their ability to have that fight is an undemocratic hissy fit of Trumpian proportions. You don't have national healthcare because you don't have the votes.
Maybe there would be more lift to the overall economic condition, if all workers were in the same boat with the same set of goals?
I would just introduce you to what worker conditions were like before unions existed.dajo9 said:Would it cause more problems than it solves? We have a two-tiered employee system. A union system of haves and a non-union system of have-nots. The unions resist healthcare for everybody else and drive up taxes for the non-union have-nots who have to pay taxes for the union employees who have better benefits and on-average, better pay.sycasey said:Agree completely. Unions haven't always been great on this issue, but they are not the primary opposition to national healthcare, not by a long shot. Unions have their problems, but abolishing them entirely would create more problems than it would solve.OaktownBear said:
You think unions do more to fight national healthcare than corporations? Especially those in the healthcare, pharmaceutical and insurance industries? Should we wipe all laws off the books allowing formation of corporations and the laws that support them?
Fight unions over every issue if you wish. Taking away their ability to have that fight is an undemocratic hissy fit of Trumpian proportions. You don't have national healthcare because you don't have the votes.
Maybe there would be more lift to the overall economic condition, if all workers were in the same boat with the same set of goals?
I'm aware. That's why Democrats worked so hard to give unions collective bargaining rights. But unions are only in it for themselves and now some unions are an impediment to Democratic goals.sycasey said:I would just introduce you to what worker conditions were like before unions existed.dajo9 said:Would it cause more problems than it solves? We have a two-tiered employee system. A union system of haves and a non-union system of have-nots. The unions resist healthcare for everybody else and drive up taxes for the non-union have-nots who have to pay taxes for the union employees who have better benefits and on-average, better pay.sycasey said:Agree completely. Unions haven't always been great on this issue, but they are not the primary opposition to national healthcare, not by a long shot. Unions have their problems, but abolishing them entirely would create more problems than it would solve.OaktownBear said:
You think unions do more to fight national healthcare than corporations? Especially those in the healthcare, pharmaceutical and insurance industries? Should we wipe all laws off the books allowing formation of corporations and the laws that support them?
Fight unions over every issue if you wish. Taking away their ability to have that fight is an undemocratic hissy fit of Trumpian proportions. You don't have national healthcare because you don't have the votes.
Maybe there would be more lift to the overall economic condition, if all workers were in the same boat with the same set of goals?
So then Dems or anyone else should be willing to stand up to those unions when they are on the wrong side of an issue. It's not an argument for there being no unions at all. That's penny wise and pound foolish.dajo9 said:I'm aware. That's why Democrats worked so hard to give unions collective bargaining rights. But unions are only in it for themselves and now some unions are an impediment to Democratic goals.sycasey said:I would just introduce you to what worker conditions were like before unions existed.dajo9 said:Would it cause more problems than it solves? We have a two-tiered employee system. A union system of haves and a non-union system of have-nots. The unions resist healthcare for everybody else and drive up taxes for the non-union have-nots who have to pay taxes for the union employees who have better benefits and on-average, better pay.sycasey said:Agree completely. Unions haven't always been great on this issue, but they are not the primary opposition to national healthcare, not by a long shot. Unions have their problems, but abolishing them entirely would create more problems than it would solve.OaktownBear said:
You think unions do more to fight national healthcare than corporations? Especially those in the healthcare, pharmaceutical and insurance industries? Should we wipe all laws off the books allowing formation of corporations and the laws that support them?
Fight unions over every issue if you wish. Taking away their ability to have that fight is an undemocratic hissy fit of Trumpian proportions. You don't have national healthcare because you don't have the votes.
Maybe there would be more lift to the overall economic condition, if all workers were in the same boat with the same set of goals?
sycasey said:
Chron:
Well, at this point it seems like every editorial board in the state has come out in favor of reopening schools. The tide is turning fast. Time for school districts and unions to get moving.
The Nation is about as left-wing as they come, and even they posted this over the weekend:
West Coast states have been more cautious about the pandemic, in general. And we have been rewarded with lower death rates. Even with California just coming off its latest wave (tidal wave?), we are above average in COVID deaths per capita since the beginning. Washington and Oregon have some of the best marks of any states.
It's a lot more than the teachers unions that are holding back school reopenings. It is the districts themselves and also the county health departments.
But teachers are quickly getting vaccinated now and most districts have planned reopenings, at least K-6 (at least part-time). Rare will be the California district that, by April, isn't open for elementary. As they should be. (Barring any new surges... unlikely. Let's be smart, people!)
Anecdotal evidence: My 3rd grade daughter goes back tomorrow and my 6th grade son on Thursday!
Well, the county health departments are now in favor of reopening so they're not the issue anymore. I would agree that more restrictive health measures probably helped these states (including WA and CA that got hit early with COVID infections) avoid worse fates. But the science on schools having low rates of transmission has been out for months and lots of other places have reopened successfully. It seems very likely we could have done it if not for the difficult politics around reopening.Big C said:sycasey said:
Chron:
Well, at this point it seems like every editorial board in the state has come out in favor of reopening schools. The tide is turning fast. Time for school districts and unions to get moving.
The Nation is about as left-wing as they come, and even they posted this over the weekend:
West Coast states have been more cautious about the pandemic, in general. And we have been rewarded with lower death rates. Even with California just coming off its latest wave (tidal wave?), we are above average in COVID deaths per capita since the beginning. Washington and Oregon have some of the best marks of any states.
It's a lot more than the teachers unions that are holding back school reopenings. It is the districts themselves and also the county health departments.
By the way, part of the issue within districts (if not the only issue) is that teachers' unions tend to exert a lot of influence over who gets elected to school boards. These are sleepy low-stakes elections that many people don't pay attention to, so that kind of bloc support can help a lot. Now, in normal times I wouldn't say it's bad to have teachers' advocates on the board, but when the unions are helping to block reopening it becomes a problem; they are nearly negotiating with themselves at that point. It's telling that in some of the other large cities that have opened (NYC, Chicago) the mayor is doing the negotiating, not the school board.
sycasey said:Well, the county health departments are now in favor of reopening so they're not the issue anymore. I would agree that more restrictive health measures probably helped these states (including WA and CA that got hit early with COVID infections) avoid worse fates. But the science on schools having low rates of transmission has been out for months and lots of other places have reopened successfully. It seems very likely we could have done it if not for the difficult politics around reopening.Big C said:sycasey said:
Chron:
Well, at this point it seems like every editorial board in the state has come out in favor of reopening schools. The tide is turning fast. Time for school districts and unions to get moving.
The Nation is about as left-wing as they come, and even they posted this over the weekend:
West Coast states have been more cautious about the pandemic, in general. And we have been rewarded with lower death rates. Even with California just coming off its latest wave (tidal wave?), we are above average in COVID deaths per capita since the beginning. Washington and Oregon have some of the best marks of any states.
It's a lot more than the teachers unions that are holding back school reopenings. It is the districts themselves and also the county health departments.
By the way, part of the issue within districts (if not the only issue) is that teachers' unions tend to exert a lot of influence over who gets elected to school boards. These are sleepy low-stakes elections that many people don't pay attention to, so that kind of bloc support can help a lot. Now, in normal times I wouldn't say it's bad to have teachers' advocates on the board, but when the unions are helping to block reopening it becomes a problem; they are nearly negotiating with themselves at that point. It's telling that in some of the other large cities that have opened (NYC, Chicago) the mayor is doing the negotiating, not the school board.
In Alameda County, the health department set a metric for reopening for K-6, which has recently been met, but a more stringent one for 7-12, which has not yet been met.
As far as teachers unions' influence on school board elections, in the district where I taught, the union had a moderate influence. Where I reside now, less than that. I would guess that the bigger the district, the more influence, to better "launch" a certain candidate.
I think part of the problem has been a failure to "time the COVID waves" and an inability to pivot quickly enough, similar to the problem that the Pac 12 had with starting football: To open last August, the decision would've needed to have been made in July, but we were having that mini-wave. In late August, there was definitely a window to get open for mid-September through October, but the moment couldn't be seized...
... instead, they waited until around late September to start thinking about that, but then, in November, the "big wave" hit and it seemed unreasonable to be considering a reopening in the middle of that.
Anyway, looks like things are all-systems-go for sometime soon, at least for elementary. As it should be.
Not in Oakland at the moment. There's been no real update in negotiations with the teachers' union or concrete dates set.Big C said:
Anyway, looks like things are all-systems-go for sometime soon, at least for elementary. As it should be.
.dajo9 said:Would it cause more problems than it solves? We have a two-tiered employee system. A union system of haves and a non-union system of have-nots. The unions resist healthcare for everybody else and drive up taxes for the non-union have-nots who have to pay taxes for the union employees who have better benefits and on-average, better pay.sycasey said:Agree completely. Unions haven't always been great on this issue, but they are not the primary opposition to national healthcare, not by a long shot. Unions have their problems, but abolishing them entirely would create more problems than it would solve.OaktownBear said:
You think unions do more to fight national healthcare than corporations? Especially those in the healthcare, pharmaceutical and insurance industries? Should we wipe all laws off the books allowing formation of corporations and the laws that support them?
Fight unions over every issue if you wish. Taking away their ability to have that fight is an undemocratic hissy fit of Trumpian proportions. You don't have national healthcare because you don't have the votes.
Maybe there would be more lift to the overall economic condition, if all workers were in the same boat with the same set of goals?
Have nots pay a really low percentage of California taxes so it is really a stretch to say they are paying for the better benefits of union workers. The average union job in California pays only a little more than the average salary overall in California. I don't know why you think union workers are a bunch of haves.
In the 30's, we gave people a right they always should have had. The right to collectively bargain. Employers already effectively had that right. I don't view this as a favor or a quid pro quo. I view it as part of our country's never ending march to having a more Democratic state. Their right to collectively bargain should not be dependent on them bargaining for what I want them to bargain for. It should not be rescinded because I think they ask for too much.
Your blaming on healthcare is really misplaced. They have not been close to the largest impediment to healthcare. As I said, corporations have been. However, if you want universal healthcare, the fastest way you could achieve that is by rescinding Medicare and tell the older generation it is all or nothing. Everyone gets it or nobody. In terms of actual voters, they are the biggest impediment to universal healthcare.
We already have one party that is moving more and more toward authoritarianism and cutting democratic rights and values to win the political game. If we adopt the same tactics we all lose.
And you are being way too narrow in your focus if you think unions aren't still aligned with Democrats more often than not. Biden won the union vote by 17%, by the way, so maybe you don't screw them over because they don't agree with everything they want.
As I said, agree when you agree and disagree when you disagree. Taking away people's rights is not the way to win an argument
sycasey said:Not in Oakland at the moment. There's been no real update in negotiations with the teachers' union or concrete dates set.Big C said:
Anyway, looks like things are all-systems-go for sometime soon, at least for elementary. As it should be.
I think if you look at the dashboard you linked, they padded a lot of items. Like hooray we are at 100% on "our windows open" but they are still at lower percentages in other categories that they need to get up to 100% in.
sycasey said:Not in Oakland at the moment. There's been no real update in negotiations with the teachers' union or concrete dates set.Big C said:
Anyway, looks like things are all-systems-go for sometime soon, at least for elementary. As it should be.
Well, they better get going! I had said they should offer vaccines to the teachers first and my semi-vaccine-hesitant wife (OUSD elementary) got it last Saturday (in other words, she just signed up; she didn't have to be a "vaccine chaser"). It may take a few weeks to get everything nailed down, but let's get on with it! Top priority; not even any schools to rename.
At this point, we are largely in agreement.
OaktownBear said:.dajo9 said:Would it cause more problems than it solves? We have a two-tiered employee system. A union system of haves and a non-union system of have-nots. The unions resist healthcare for everybody else and drive up taxes for the non-union have-nots who have to pay taxes for the union employees who have better benefits and on-average, better pay.sycasey said:Agree completely. Unions haven't always been great on this issue, but they are not the primary opposition to national healthcare, not by a long shot. Unions have their problems, but abolishing them entirely would create more problems than it would solve.OaktownBear said:
You think unions do more to fight national healthcare than corporations? Especially those in the healthcare, pharmaceutical and insurance industries? Should we wipe all laws off the books allowing formation of corporations and the laws that support them?
Fight unions over every issue if you wish. Taking away their ability to have that fight is an undemocratic hissy fit of Trumpian proportions. You don't have national healthcare because you don't have the votes.
Maybe there would be more lift to the overall economic condition, if all workers were in the same boat with the same set of goals?
Have nots pay a really low percentage of California taxes so it is really a stretch to say they are paying for the better benefits of union workers. The average union job in California pays only a little more than the average salary overall in California. I don't know why you think union workers are a bunch of haves.
In the 30's, we gave people a right they always should have had. The right to collectively bargain. Employers already effectively had that right. I don't view this as a favor or a quid pro quo. I view it as part of our country's never ending march to having a more Democratic state. Their right to collectively bargain should not be dependent on them bargaining for what I want them to bargain for. It should not be rescinded because I think they ask for too much.
Your blaming on healthcare is really misplaced. They have not been close to the largest impediment to healthcare. As I said, corporations have been. However, if you want universal healthcare, the fastest way you could achieve that is by rescinding Medicare and tell the older generation it is all or nothing. Everyone gets it or nobody. In terms of actual voters, they are the biggest impediment to universal healthcare.
We already have one party that is moving more and more toward authoritarianism and cutting democratic rights and values to win the political game. If we adopt the same tactics we all lose.
And you are being way too narrow in your focus if you think unions aren't still aligned with Democrats more often than not. Biden won the union vote by 17%, by the way, so maybe you don't screw them over because they don't agree with everything they want.
As I said, agree when you agree and disagree when you disagree. Taking away people's rights is not the way to win an argument
Have nots pay a very substantial portion of sales taxes and property taxes through rent (not to mention lottery ticket purchases). I'm sure those are big contributors to public service union funding.
Also, unions voting for Biden isn't so impressive when you think about it regionally. Over half of union membership comes from 7 states: CA, NY, NJ, IL, PA, OH, MI. That's 4 solid blue states, 2 purple states, and 1 red state.
So I just got off a conference call with some of the folks who are in this organization. They've been at it since October and have been around the bend with a lot of the local leaders. Here's what they tell me:sycasey said:
Here's a parents' organization I found that is pushing to get more information about school reopening plans from the district and the union.
https://www.ousdparents.com/
1. The union (OEA) has taken a particularly hard-line stance against reopening. Their demands go way beyond what the CDC, the state, or the county health officials recommend. They don't want to fully reopen until we're effectively in the CDC's blue tier, less than 1 case per 100,000. That basically means "no COVID," which is a standard that might never actually be reached. They made up this chart:
Seems accurate based on the publicly available information of where the latest offers stand from OUSD and OEA.
2. Of course not all teachers agree with this standard, but the most hard-line, activist members rule the roost and have had the most influence over negotiations. They've also sent a lot of propaganda around to stoke fear in their members and also in families at some schools (they tend to target the schools with fewer college-educated parents). So basically they are stalled and have been for months. Maybe vaccination of teachers will help move this along, but no indication yet. If you try to talk about reopening within school communities you are likely to get some teachers or parents who will yell about how you want everyone to die and try to shut down the discussion.
3. The Superintendent and Mayor generally support reopening but are nervous about taking a hard stance against the teachers, for fear it could completely kill the negotiations.
4. The School Board isn't as nutty-activist as the San Francisco board, but at least two members (of 7) are fully union-aligned and fully against reopening (Williams and Hutchinson). A third (Davis) has been pretty aligned with the union most of the way but seems to be wavering under public pressure. The rest are generally open to the idea, but given how contentious it's been with the union are kind of waiting for the state to step in and force their hands.
5. From what they've been able to see of the school sites, they are largely ready to be opened. Masks are ready, air filtration is ready, desks are spaced. All of K-2 could come back to school now and there would be no spacing issues. Of course they haven't been to every school site yet, and sometimes teachers will push back on these claims by saying such-and-such school doesn't have any hand sanitizer or filters or whatever. When they've reached out to those teachers to offer their assistance for fundraising or pushing the district to provide these things, they've been met with silence.
So that's where it appears to stand. I'm not sure anything will move forward without a push from parents and hopefully from teachers within the district now that vaccinations are happening. Another thing being discussed is a lawsuit (which lit a fire under SF's butt) or at least a letter threatening litigation (which got Berkeley to come to a deal). As most of this group is led by white parents, they're also working with the local NAACP and other groups to see if they can get buy-in from communities of color (and perhaps some other families willing to be party to a lawsuit).
So yeah, it's a mess. And I think my suspicions about the union leadership being the big issue here appear to be correct. This problem also seems to stretch back many years, a feeling of distrust between the union and the district, and the union seems to have committed itself to a hard-line position they are finding it hard to get out of. Those of you who have students in the district or wives working for the district may want to also start raising your voices. Reach out to the teachers, principals, PTA, whatever. I wouldn't recommend coming at it from an anti-OEA perspective, just from the standpoint that you want to know what's going on and why we aren't open yet.
Couple of things.LMK5 said:That seems about right. My HS teacher friend mentioned to me he was making $70k about 10 years ago. He owned a home in OC. If his wife was making about the same you can do fine here. Now, we also have to realize that the pay is for 10 months of work with lots of off days, so I think it's pretty good, but I'm not nearly as affluent as most on this board so my yardstick is a little skewed I'll admit.Big C said:LMK5 said:Are teachers still poorly paid or is that less true than it was in the past? My neighbor is an elementary school teacher and she drives a BMW 440i. I know a few teachers and they are all homeowners here and this is an expensive place to live. I know teaching is not a high-paying profession but it seems they do pretty well around here.Big C said:dajo9 said:
Public sector union employees work 20 years, get a pension, then go work in the private sector, essentially getting two incomes off a tax base with lower incomes then 1 of their jobs.
FYI, in California, teachers can't draw retirement until age 55 and, if they choose to do that, they have chosen to draw a significantly smaller monthly, for life. The retirement doesn't get too good until one retires after 60.
If teachers unions are really all that powerful, why are teachers not paid better? Think about it...
Anyway, unless we get a "fourth wave" of COVID really soon, California's K-6 ought to reopen at least part time (hybrid), some time in the next six weeks. Otherwise, something's not right. My wife (elementary OUSD), who has been "semi-vaccine-hesitant", got her first Pfizer yesterday. So line up, teachers! Then open up!
Almost all teachers are in the 50-100,000 dollar range (gross annual salary, not including benefits, but with money taken out of that for retirement, which is basically matched). Most of those are in the 60-80 range. Do you think that's good money? A matter of opinion, I suppose.
BTW my social worker daughter makes far less than the numbers you presented.
It is quite possible that someone who is independently wealthy has chosen to teach, not for money but for the joy of teaching. I may definitely go into teaching in the future, although I suspect it will be more post-graduate than primary. And it would not be for the money.
And I think this idea of paying teachers more will attract better talent or that teachers are underpaid if flawed
If someone who is highly accomplished (the top minds) doesn't go into teaching because of money, no amount of incremental increase will convince her to go into teaching when she can make so much more money (even after any increase) going private, going into consulting, etc. So, someone who could make $200K out of college is going to go into teaching because she can make $110K when she was going to avoid it when she could only make $90K? Don't buy it.
And what is compelling is that there are many things other than salary that makes a job worthwhile. As OTB and I have discussed before, I made more being a big law firm lawyer and working insane hours (instead of going home earlier and making more time for family) when he chose to make less and enjoy more family time. There is a cost to everything. And no one prevented me from taking a job that paid less but provided more leisure and no one prevent OTB from taking a higher paying job (although he makes a lot by any other standards as a corporate lawyer in any circumstance) and spending less time with family. We all make trade-offs and no one is prevented from pursuing a job that pays more if that is what they are after. But if money is not the main driver (and it is not for many people - I am sure all of us could have made more with sacrifices we were not willing to make), don't make it into the only factor. Apparently, teaching provides sufficient benefits in totality for there to be sufficient number of teachers. If there is, they are not underpaid, and no one is overpaid if someone is willing to pay. If one thinks a job overpays, take it. If you don't, there must be sacrifices that need to be made that you are not willing to make but someone else is. Then it is not an overpaid job.
sycasey said:So I just got off a conference call with some of the folks who are in this organization. They've been at it since October and have been around the bend with a lot of the local leaders. Here's what they tell me:sycasey said:
Here's a parents' organization I found that is pushing to get more information about school reopening plans from the district and the union.
https://www.ousdparents.com/
1. The union (OEA) has taken a particularly hard-line stance against reopening. Their demands go way beyond what the CDC, the state, or the county health officials recommend. They don't want to fully reopen until we're effectively in the CDC's blue tier, less than 1 case per 100,000. That basically means "no COVID," which is a standard that might never actually be reached. They made up this chart:
Seems accurate based on the publicly available information of where the latest offers stand from OUSD and OEA.
2. Of course not all teachers agree with this standard, but the most hard-line, activist members rule the roost and have had the most influence over negotiations. They've also sent a lot of propaganda around to stoke fear in their members and also in families at some schools (they tend to target the schools with fewer college-educated parents). So basically they are stalled and have been for months. Maybe vaccination of teachers will help move this along, but no indication yet. If you try to talk about reopening within school communities you are likely to get some teachers or parents who will yell about how you want everyone to die and try to shut down the discussion.
3. The Superintendent and Mayor generally support reopening but are nervous about taking a hard stance against the teachers, for fear it could completely kill the negotiations.
4. The School Board isn't as nutty-activist as the San Francisco board, but at least two members (of 7) are fully union-aligned and fully against reopening (Williams and Hutchinson). A third (Davis) has been pretty aligned with the union most of the way but seems to be wavering under public pressure. The rest are generally open to the idea, but given how contentious it's been with the union are kind of waiting for the state to step in and force their hands.
5. From what they've been able to see of the school sites, they are largely ready to be opened. Masks are ready, air filtration is ready, desks are spaced. All of K-2 could come back to school now and there would be no spacing issues. Of course they haven't been to every school site yet, and sometimes teachers will push back on these claims by saying such-and-such school doesn't have any hand sanitizer or filters or whatever. When they've reached out to those teachers to offer their assistance for fundraising or pushing the district to provide these things, they've been met with silence.
So that's where it appears to stand. I'm not sure anything will move forward without a push from parents and hopefully from teachers within the district now that vaccinations are happening. Another thing being discussed is a lawsuit (which lit a fire under SF's butt) or at least a letter threatening litigation (which got Berkeley to come to a deal). As most of this group is led by white parents, they're also working with the local NAACP and other groups to see if they can get buy-in from communities of color (and perhaps some other families willing to be party to a lawsuit).
So yeah, it's a mess. And I think my suspicions about the union leadership being the big issue here appear to be correct. This problem also seems to stretch back many years, a feeling of distrust between the union and the district, and the union seems to have committed itself to a hard-line position they are finding it hard to get out of. Those of you who have students in the district or wives working for the district may want to also start raising your voices. Reach out to the teachers, principals, PTA, whatever. I wouldn't recommend coming at it from an anti-OEA perspective, just from the standpoint that you want to know what's going on and why we aren't open yet.
Assuming what you're saying is true (and I'm not saying it isn't), this seems to be one of those situations where a union is making an outrageous demand. There should be an end run, or they should just be steamrolled (if possible). As you and others have alluded to, this will cost Oakland teachers the next time they have a reasonable demand. It's unfortunate. Especially for elementary.
Parents could keep the option of their kids staying remote, but, ideally, the Oakland teachers, at least k-6, would go get vaccinated ASAP and then the schools would open up some time next month, at least part time. To not do that defies common sense and common decency.
I'm a recently retired teacher and teachers union supporter (usually) and I wrote this message.
What level did you teach and if not elementary, what subject?Big C said:
I'm a recently retired teacher and teachers union supporter (usually) and I wrote this message.
Big C said:sycasey said:So I just got off a conference call with some of the folks who are in this organization. They've been at it since October and have been around the bend with a lot of the local leaders. Here's what they tell me:sycasey said:
Here's a parents' organization I found that is pushing to get more information about school reopening plans from the district and the union.
https://www.ousdparents.com/
1. The union (OEA) has taken a particularly hard-line stance against reopening. Their demands go way beyond what the CDC, the state, or the county health officials recommend. They don't want to fully reopen until we're effectively in the CDC's blue tier, less than 1 case per 100,000. That basically means "no COVID," which is a standard that might never actually be reached. They made up this chart:
Seems accurate based on the publicly available information of where the latest offers stand from OUSD and OEA.
2. Of course not all teachers agree with this standard, but the most hard-line, activist members rule the roost and have had the most influence over negotiations. They've also sent a lot of propaganda around to stoke fear in their members and also in families at some schools (they tend to target the schools with fewer college-educated parents). So basically they are stalled and have been for months. Maybe vaccination of teachers will help move this along, but no indication yet. If you try to talk about reopening within school communities you are likely to get some teachers or parents who will yell about how you want everyone to die and try to shut down the discussion.
3. The Superintendent and Mayor generally support reopening but are nervous about taking a hard stance against the teachers, for fear it could completely kill the negotiations.
4. The School Board isn't as nutty-activist as the San Francisco board, but at least two members (of 7) are fully union-aligned and fully against reopening (Williams and Hutchinson). A third (Davis) has been pretty aligned with the union most of the way but seems to be wavering under public pressure. The rest are generally open to the idea, but given how contentious it's been with the union are kind of waiting for the state to step in and force their hands.
5. From what they've been able to see of the school sites, they are largely ready to be opened. Masks are ready, air filtration is ready, desks are spaced. All of K-2 could come back to school now and there would be no spacing issues. Of course they haven't been to every school site yet, and sometimes teachers will push back on these claims by saying such-and-such school doesn't have any hand sanitizer or filters or whatever. When they've reached out to those teachers to offer their assistance for fundraising or pushing the district to provide these things, they've been met with silence.
So that's where it appears to stand. I'm not sure anything will move forward without a push from parents and hopefully from teachers within the district now that vaccinations are happening. Another thing being discussed is a lawsuit (which lit a fire under SF's butt) or at least a letter threatening litigation (which got Berkeley to come to a deal). As most of this group is led by white parents, they're also working with the local NAACP and other groups to see if they can get buy-in from communities of color (and perhaps some other families willing to be party to a lawsuit).
So yeah, it's a mess. And I think my suspicions about the union leadership being the big issue here appear to be correct. This problem also seems to stretch back many years, a feeling of distrust between the union and the district, and the union seems to have committed itself to a hard-line position they are finding it hard to get out of. Those of you who have students in the district or wives working for the district may want to also start raising your voices. Reach out to the teachers, principals, PTA, whatever. I wouldn't recommend coming at it from an anti-OEA perspective, just from the standpoint that you want to know what's going on and why we aren't open yet.
Assuming what you're saying is true (and I'm not saying it isn't), this seems to be one of those situations where a union is making an outrageous demand. There should be an end run, or they should just be steamrolled (if possible). As you and others have alluded to, this will cost Oakland teachers the next time they have a reasonable demand. It's unfortunate. Especially for elementary.
Parents could keep the option of their kids staying remote, but, ideally, the Oakland teachers, at least k-6, would go get vaccinated ASAP and then the schools would open up some time next month, at least part time. To not do that defies common sense and common decency.
I'm a recently retired teacher and teachers union supporter (usually) and I wrote this message.
That's just it, normally I would want to support the union too. Part of my frustration is that I think this direction actually harms their own cause and the cause of public education in general. Per what I've been told, the OEA's primary focuses (outside of COVID) are as follows:
1. Reparations for black students (not sure I agree with that, but if you can get the money then okay)
2. Preventing permanent school closures (a bit ironic there)
3. Stopping the proliferation of charter schools (I'm agnostic on this, but I understand why the union would dislike charters)
But if those are your goals, then keeping the district schools closed only means decreasing enrollment that will mean less money for the district (no reparations), schools with empty desks (so they will close down permanently), and more parents looking for other options (like charter schools). It's totally counterproductive. I find this whole situation maddening.
sycasey said:Big C said:sycasey said:So I just got off a conference call with some of the folks who are in this organization. They've been at it since October and have been around the bend with a lot of the local leaders. Here's what they tell me:sycasey said:
Here's a parents' organization I found that is pushing to get more information about school reopening plans from the district and the union.
https://www.ousdparents.com/
1. The union (OEA) has taken a particularly hard-line stance against reopening. Their demands go way beyond what the CDC, the state, or the county health officials recommend. They don't want to fully reopen until we're effectively in the CDC's blue tier, less than 1 case per 100,000. That basically means "no COVID," which is a standard that might never actually be reached. They made up this chart:
Seems accurate based on the publicly available information of where the latest offers stand from OUSD and OEA.
2. Of course not all teachers agree with this standard, but the most hard-line, activist members rule the roost and have had the most influence over negotiations. They've also sent a lot of propaganda around to stoke fear in their members and also in families at some schools (they tend to target the schools with fewer college-educated parents). So basically they are stalled and have been for months. Maybe vaccination of teachers will help move this along, but no indication yet. If you try to talk about reopening within school communities you are likely to get some teachers or parents who will yell about how you want everyone to die and try to shut down the discussion.
3. The Superintendent and Mayor generally support reopening but are nervous about taking a hard stance against the teachers, for fear it could completely kill the negotiations.
4. The School Board isn't as nutty-activist as the San Francisco board, but at least two members (of 7) are fully union-aligned and fully against reopening (Williams and Hutchinson). A third (Davis) has been pretty aligned with the union most of the way but seems to be wavering under public pressure. The rest are generally open to the idea, but given how contentious it's been with the union are kind of waiting for the state to step in and force their hands.
5. From what they've been able to see of the school sites, they are largely ready to be opened. Masks are ready, air filtration is ready, desks are spaced. All of K-2 could come back to school now and there would be no spacing issues. Of course they haven't been to every school site yet, and sometimes teachers will push back on these claims by saying such-and-such school doesn't have any hand sanitizer or filters or whatever. When they've reached out to those teachers to offer their assistance for fundraising or pushing the district to provide these things, they've been met with silence.
So that's where it appears to stand. I'm not sure anything will move forward without a push from parents and hopefully from teachers within the district now that vaccinations are happening. Another thing being discussed is a lawsuit (which lit a fire under SF's butt) or at least a letter threatening litigation (which got Berkeley to come to a deal). As most of this group is led by white parents, they're also working with the local NAACP and other groups to see if they can get buy-in from communities of color (and perhaps some other families willing to be party to a lawsuit).
So yeah, it's a mess. And I think my suspicions about the union leadership being the big issue here appear to be correct. This problem also seems to stretch back many years, a feeling of distrust between the union and the district, and the union seems to have committed itself to a hard-line position they are finding it hard to get out of. Those of you who have students in the district or wives working for the district may want to also start raising your voices. Reach out to the teachers, principals, PTA, whatever. I wouldn't recommend coming at it from an anti-OEA perspective, just from the standpoint that you want to know what's going on and why we aren't open yet.
Assuming what you're saying is true (and I'm not saying it isn't), this seems to be one of those situations where a union is making an outrageous demand. There should be an end run, or they should just be steamrolled (if possible). As you and others have alluded to, this will cost Oakland teachers the next time they have a reasonable demand. It's unfortunate. Especially for elementary.
Parents could keep the option of their kids staying remote, but, ideally, the Oakland teachers, at least k-6, would go get vaccinated ASAP and then the schools would open up some time next month, at least part time. To not do that defies common sense and common decency.
I'm a recently retired teacher and teachers union supporter (usually) and I wrote this message.
That's just it, normally I would want to support the union too. Part of my frustration is that I think this direction actually harms their own cause and the cause of public education in general. Per what I've been told, the OEA's primary focuses (outside of COVID) are as follows:
1. Reparations for black students (not sure I agree with that, but if you can get the money then okay)
2. Preventing permanent school closures (a bit ironic there)
3. Stopping the proliferation of charter schools (I'm agnostic on this, but I understand why the union would dislike charters)
But if those are your goals, then keeping the district schools closed only means decreasing enrollment that will mean less money for the district (no reparations), schools with empty desks (so they will close down permanently), and more parents looking for other options (like charter schools). It's totally counterproductive. I find this whole situation maddening.
The word "reparations" seems to being used by some as a catch all rather than its original meaning.
SFBear92 said:What level did you teach and if not elementary, what subject?Big C said:
I'm a recently retired teacher and teachers union supporter (usually) and I wrote this message.
High school. Social Science, ESL and foreign language. 19 yrs
sycasey said:Big C said:sycasey said:So I just got off a conference call with some of the folks who are in this organization. They've been at it since October and have been around the bend with a lot of the local leaders. Here's what they tell me:sycasey said:
Here's a parents' organization I found that is pushing to get more information about school reopening plans from the district and the union.
https://www.ousdparents.com/
1. The union (OEA) has taken a particularly hard-line stance against reopening. Their demands go way beyond what the CDC, the state, or the county health officials recommend. They don't want to fully reopen until we're effectively in the CDC's blue tier, less than 1 case per 100,000. That basically means "no COVID," which is a standard that might never actually be reached. They made up this chart:
Seems accurate based on the publicly available information of where the latest offers stand from OUSD and OEA.
2. Of course not all teachers agree with this standard, but the most hard-line, activist members rule the roost and have had the most influence over negotiations. They've also sent a lot of propaganda around to stoke fear in their members and also in families at some schools (they tend to target the schools with fewer college-educated parents). So basically they are stalled and have been for months. Maybe vaccination of teachers will help move this along, but no indication yet. If you try to talk about reopening within school communities you are likely to get some teachers or parents who will yell about how you want everyone to die and try to shut down the discussion.
3. The Superintendent and Mayor generally support reopening but are nervous about taking a hard stance against the teachers, for fear it could completely kill the negotiations.
4. The School Board isn't as nutty-activist as the San Francisco board, but at least two members (of 7) are fully union-aligned and fully against reopening (Williams and Hutchinson). A third (Davis) has been pretty aligned with the union most of the way but seems to be wavering under public pressure. The rest are generally open to the idea, but given how contentious it's been with the union are kind of waiting for the state to step in and force their hands.
5. From what they've been able to see of the school sites, they are largely ready to be opened. Masks are ready, air filtration is ready, desks are spaced. All of K-2 could come back to school now and there would be no spacing issues. Of course they haven't been to every school site yet, and sometimes teachers will push back on these claims by saying such-and-such school doesn't have any hand sanitizer or filters or whatever. When they've reached out to those teachers to offer their assistance for fundraising or pushing the district to provide these things, they've been met with silence.
So that's where it appears to stand. I'm not sure anything will move forward without a push from parents and hopefully from teachers within the district now that vaccinations are happening. Another thing being discussed is a lawsuit (which lit a fire under SF's butt) or at least a letter threatening litigation (which got Berkeley to come to a deal). As most of this group is led by white parents, they're also working with the local NAACP and other groups to see if they can get buy-in from communities of color (and perhaps some other families willing to be party to a lawsuit).
So yeah, it's a mess. And I think my suspicions about the union leadership being the big issue here appear to be correct. This problem also seems to stretch back many years, a feeling of distrust between the union and the district, and the union seems to have committed itself to a hard-line position they are finding it hard to get out of. Those of you who have students in the district or wives working for the district may want to also start raising your voices. Reach out to the teachers, principals, PTA, whatever. I wouldn't recommend coming at it from an anti-OEA perspective, just from the standpoint that you want to know what's going on and why we aren't open yet.
Assuming what you're saying is true (and I'm not saying it isn't), this seems to be one of those situations where a union is making an outrageous demand. There should be an end run, or they should just be steamrolled (if possible). As you and others have alluded to, this will cost Oakland teachers the next time they have a reasonable demand. It's unfortunate. Especially for elementary.
Parents could keep the option of their kids staying remote, but, ideally, the Oakland teachers, at least k-6, would go get vaccinated ASAP and then the schools would open up some time next month, at least part time. To not do that defies common sense and common decency.
I'm a recently retired teacher and teachers union supporter (usually) and I wrote this message.
That's just it, normally I would want to support the union too. Part of my frustration is that I think this direction actually harms their own cause and the cause of public education in general. Per what I've been told, the OEA's primary focuses (outside of COVID) are as follows:
1. Reparations for black students (not sure I agree with that, but if you can get the money then okay)
2. Preventing permanent school closures (a bit ironic there)
3. Stopping the proliferation of charter schools (I'm agnostic on this, but I understand why the union would dislike charters)
But if those are your goals, then keeping the district schools closed only means decreasing enrollment that will mean less money for the district (no reparations), schools with empty desks (so they will close down permanently), and more parents looking for other options (like charter schools). It's totally counterproductive. I find this whole situation maddening.
Wow, is that written down somewhere? "Per what I've been told... " might not be too accurate.
A teachers union should serve one main purpose and one secondary purpose:
1. maximize compensation and good working conditions for teachers
2. advocate teachers' expertise on how to improve education
I'm almost reluctant to mention the second one, because #1 is the unions' primary function and the two almost always get intermingled, often with bad results. However, teachers have a valuable voice on how to improve education and that voice needs a conduit, so it often comes through the union. There probably should be an entirely different vehicle for #2.
I know when Oakland teachers went on strike, they talked a lot about the three things you mentioned, since they thought it sounded a lot more high-minded than "we want more money" and would sell better to the public.
What was your favorite social science to teach? I always enjoyed U.S. History, but my Government teacher was pretty good too. Had to go speak at a public meeting as part of that class though, which represents my first and last time speaking at a school board meeting. Ha.Big C said:SFBear92 said:What level did you teach and if not elementary, what subject?Big C said:
I'm a recently retired teacher and teachers union supporter (usually) and I wrote this message.
High school. Social Science, ESL and foreign language. 19 yrs
Big C said:sycasey said:Big C said:sycasey said:So I just got off a conference call with some of the folks who are in this organization. They've been at it since October and have been around the bend with a lot of the local leaders. Here's what they tell me:sycasey said:
Here's a parents' organization I found that is pushing to get more information about school reopening plans from the district and the union.
https://www.ousdparents.com/
1. The union (OEA) has taken a particularly hard-line stance against reopening. Their demands go way beyond what the CDC, the state, or the county health officials recommend. They don't want to fully reopen until we're effectively in the CDC's blue tier, less than 1 case per 100,000. That basically means "no COVID," which is a standard that might never actually be reached. They made up this chart:
Seems accurate based on the publicly available information of where the latest offers stand from OUSD and OEA.
2. Of course not all teachers agree with this standard, but the most hard-line, activist members rule the roost and have had the most influence over negotiations. They've also sent a lot of propaganda around to stoke fear in their members and also in families at some schools (they tend to target the schools with fewer college-educated parents). So basically they are stalled and have been for months. Maybe vaccination of teachers will help move this along, but no indication yet. If you try to talk about reopening within school communities you are likely to get some teachers or parents who will yell about how you want everyone to die and try to shut down the discussion.
3. The Superintendent and Mayor generally support reopening but are nervous about taking a hard stance against the teachers, for fear it could completely kill the negotiations.
4. The School Board isn't as nutty-activist as the San Francisco board, but at least two members (of 7) are fully union-aligned and fully against reopening (Williams and Hutchinson). A third (Davis) has been pretty aligned with the union most of the way but seems to be wavering under public pressure. The rest are generally open to the idea, but given how contentious it's been with the union are kind of waiting for the state to step in and force their hands.
5. From what they've been able to see of the school sites, they are largely ready to be opened. Masks are ready, air filtration is ready, desks are spaced. All of K-2 could come back to school now and there would be no spacing issues. Of course they haven't been to every school site yet, and sometimes teachers will push back on these claims by saying such-and-such school doesn't have any hand sanitizer or filters or whatever. When they've reached out to those teachers to offer their assistance for fundraising or pushing the district to provide these things, they've been met with silence.
So that's where it appears to stand. I'm not sure anything will move forward without a push from parents and hopefully from teachers within the district now that vaccinations are happening. Another thing being discussed is a lawsuit (which lit a fire under SF's butt) or at least a letter threatening litigation (which got Berkeley to come to a deal). As most of this group is led by white parents, they're also working with the local NAACP and other groups to see if they can get buy-in from communities of color (and perhaps some other families willing to be party to a lawsuit).
So yeah, it's a mess. And I think my suspicions about the union leadership being the big issue here appear to be correct. This problem also seems to stretch back many years, a feeling of distrust between the union and the district, and the union seems to have committed itself to a hard-line position they are finding it hard to get out of. Those of you who have students in the district or wives working for the district may want to also start raising your voices. Reach out to the teachers, principals, PTA, whatever. I wouldn't recommend coming at it from an anti-OEA perspective, just from the standpoint that you want to know what's going on and why we aren't open yet.
Assuming what you're saying is true (and I'm not saying it isn't), this seems to be one of those situations where a union is making an outrageous demand. There should be an end run, or they should just be steamrolled (if possible). As you and others have alluded to, this will cost Oakland teachers the next time they have a reasonable demand. It's unfortunate. Especially for elementary.
Parents could keep the option of their kids staying remote, but, ideally, the Oakland teachers, at least k-6, would go get vaccinated ASAP and then the schools would open up some time next month, at least part time. To not do that defies common sense and common decency.
I'm a recently retired teacher and teachers union supporter (usually) and I wrote this message.
That's just it, normally I would want to support the union too. Part of my frustration is that I think this direction actually harms their own cause and the cause of public education in general. Per what I've been told, the OEA's primary focuses (outside of COVID) are as follows:
1. Reparations for black students (not sure I agree with that, but if you can get the money then okay)
2. Preventing permanent school closures (a bit ironic there)
3. Stopping the proliferation of charter schools (I'm agnostic on this, but I understand why the union would dislike charters)
But if those are your goals, then keeping the district schools closed only means decreasing enrollment that will mean less money for the district (no reparations), schools with empty desks (so they will close down permanently), and more parents looking for other options (like charter schools). It's totally counterproductive. I find this whole situation maddening.
Wow, is that written down somewhere? "Per what I've been told... " might not be too accurate.
A teachers union should serve one main purpose and one secondary purpose:
1. maximize compensation and good working conditions for teachers
2. advocate teachers' expertise on how to improve education
I'm almost reluctant to mention the second one, because #1 is the unions' primary function and the two almost always get intermingled, often with bad results. However, teachers have a valuable voice on how to improve education and that voice needs a conduit, so it often comes through the union. There probably should be an entirely different vehicle for #2.
I know when Oakland teachers went on strike, they talked a lot about the three things you mentioned, since they thought it sounded a lot more high-minded than "we want more money" and would sell better to the public.
I mean, probably a lot of that is high-minded rhetoric overlaying the real goals that are to do as you say. But if you look at their Instagram page, for example, you see a lot of posts about reparations. So it seems accurate as to their publicly stated goals.
calbear93 said:Couple of things.LMK5 said:That seems about right. My HS teacher friend mentioned to me he was making $70k about 10 years ago. He owned a home in OC. If his wife was making about the same you can do fine here. Now, we also have to realize that the pay is for 10 months of work with lots of off days, so I think it's pretty good, but I'm not nearly as affluent as most on this board so my yardstick is a little skewed I'll admit.Big C said:LMK5 said:Are teachers still poorly paid or is that less true than it was in the past? My neighbor is an elementary school teacher and she drives a BMW 440i. I know a few teachers and they are all homeowners here and this is an expensive place to live. I know teaching is not a high-paying profession but it seems they do pretty well around here.Big C said:dajo9 said:
Public sector union employees work 20 years, get a pension, then go work in the private sector, essentially getting two incomes off a tax base with lower incomes then 1 of their jobs.
FYI, in California, teachers can't draw retirement until age 55 and, if they choose to do that, they have chosen to draw a significantly smaller monthly, for life. The retirement doesn't get too good until one retires after 60.
If teachers unions are really all that powerful, why are teachers not paid better? Think about it...
Anyway, unless we get a "fourth wave" of COVID really soon, California's K-6 ought to reopen at least part time (hybrid), some time in the next six weeks. Otherwise, something's not right. My wife (elementary OUSD), who has been "semi-vaccine-hesitant", got her first Pfizer yesterday. So line up, teachers! Then open up!
Almost all teachers are in the 50-100,000 dollar range (gross annual salary, not including benefits, but with money taken out of that for retirement, which is basically matched). Most of those are in the 60-80 range. Do you think that's good money? A matter of opinion, I suppose.
BTW my social worker daughter makes far less than the numbers you presented.
It is quite possible that someone who is independently wealthy has chosen to teach, not for money but for the joy of teaching. I may definitely go into teaching in the future, although I suspect it will be more post-graduate than primary. And it would not be for the money.
And I think this idea of paying teachers more will attract better talent or that teachers are underpaid if flawed
If someone who is highly accomplished (the top minds) doesn't go into teaching because of money, no amount of incremental increase will convince her to go into teaching when she can make so much more money (even after any increase) going private, going into consulting, etc. So, someone who could make $200K out of college is going to go into teaching because she can make $110K when she was going to avoid it when she could only make $90K? Don't buy it.
And what is compelling is that there are many things other than salary that makes a job worthwhile. As OTB and I have discussed before, I made more being a big law firm lawyer and working insane hours (instead of going home earlier and making more time for family) when he chose to make less and enjoy more family time. There is a cost to everything. And no one prevented me from taking a job that paid less but provided more leisure and no one prevent OTB from taking a higher paying job (although he makes a lot by any other standards as a corporate lawyer in any circumstance) and spending less time with family. We all make trade-offs and no one is prevented from pursuing a job that pays more if that is what they are after. But if money is not the main driver (and it is not for many people - I am sure all of us could have made more with sacrifices we were not willing to make), don't make it into the only factor. Apparently, teaching provides sufficient benefits in totality for there to be sufficient number of teachers. If there is, they are not underpaid, and no one is overpaid if someone is willing to pay. If one thinks a job overpays, take it. If you don't, there must be sacrifices that need to be made that you are not willing to make but someone else is. Then it is not an overpaid job.
This reminds me a little bit of the tongue-in-cheek argument "Give teachers a raise? Heck, we should cut their salaries in half. That way, we will know that they're really there because they love teaching kids, not simply because of the money!" (Note that I said "a little bit".)
Remember in Econ 1 (Did you have it in Wheeler Auditorium, too?), when you saw a demand curve and you thought, heck, it doesn't matter to me if that widget is 20% cheaper or 20% more expensive. If I need a widget, I'm going to buy a widget!" And yet, there's the curve and it turns out, as price goes up (doesn't matter how much), demand goes down and visa versa. For a variety of reasons.
Same with teacher pay. Right now, the typical teacher takes the job because he/she basically likes it, appreciates the extra time off and is willing to work for that salary. Some combination of that. But if you raise or lower teacher salaries, that is going to affect the quality of teacher that you are able to hire, in the aggregate. It is not the only variable, but it is one variable.
So are we satisfied with the people that have chosen to be teachers? If so, hey, great. If not, one way to get better teachers is to raise their salaries. (other ways, too, of course)
They say, because of demographics, that there is going to be a teacher shortage, so maybe that figures in, too, although I see "remote learning" cheaply solving this challenge (though perhaps unfortunately).
If Cal needs to hire football or basketball coaches, don't we figure we have a better chance to get good ones if we pay more? If not, maybe we should stick with Cal guys who just love being at Cal. It would save a lot of money.
I don't know if we could ever afford to offer enough to make a big difference in the pool of teachers and attract enough brilliant minds to increase the average quality of teachers. You pay teachers $10,000 or even $20,000 more and they are still underpaid relative to what the top minds could make. I think there are certain threshold we would have to cross to attract brilliant minds who are attracted to money, and we could not afford to cross that threshold. If we just raised it by what we can afford, we just have less to spend on infrastructure or school equipment.Big C said:calbear93 said:Couple of things.LMK5 said:That seems about right. My HS teacher friend mentioned to me he was making $70k about 10 years ago. He owned a home in OC. If his wife was making about the same you can do fine here. Now, we also have to realize that the pay is for 10 months of work with lots of off days, so I think it's pretty good, but I'm not nearly as affluent as most on this board so my yardstick is a little skewed I'll admit.Big C said:LMK5 said:Are teachers still poorly paid or is that less true than it was in the past? My neighbor is an elementary school teacher and she drives a BMW 440i. I know a few teachers and they are all homeowners here and this is an expensive place to live. I know teaching is not a high-paying profession but it seems they do pretty well around here.Big C said:dajo9 said:
Public sector union employees work 20 years, get a pension, then go work in the private sector, essentially getting two incomes off a tax base with lower incomes then 1 of their jobs.
FYI, in California, teachers can't draw retirement until age 55 and, if they choose to do that, they have chosen to draw a significantly smaller monthly, for life. The retirement doesn't get too good until one retires after 60.
If teachers unions are really all that powerful, why are teachers not paid better? Think about it...
Anyway, unless we get a "fourth wave" of COVID really soon, California's K-6 ought to reopen at least part time (hybrid), some time in the next six weeks. Otherwise, something's not right. My wife (elementary OUSD), who has been "semi-vaccine-hesitant", got her first Pfizer yesterday. So line up, teachers! Then open up!
Almost all teachers are in the 50-100,000 dollar range (gross annual salary, not including benefits, but with money taken out of that for retirement, which is basically matched). Most of those are in the 60-80 range. Do you think that's good money? A matter of opinion, I suppose.
BTW my social worker daughter makes far less than the numbers you presented.
It is quite possible that someone who is independently wealthy has chosen to teach, not for money but for the joy of teaching. I may definitely go into teaching in the future, although I suspect it will be more post-graduate than primary. And it would not be for the money.
And I think this idea of paying teachers more will attract better talent or that teachers are underpaid if flawed
If someone who is highly accomplished (the top minds) doesn't go into teaching because of money, no amount of incremental increase will convince her to go into teaching when she can make so much more money (even after any increase) going private, going into consulting, etc. So, someone who could make $200K out of college is going to go into teaching because she can make $110K when she was going to avoid it when she could only make $90K? Don't buy it.
And what is compelling is that there are many things other than salary that makes a job worthwhile. As OTB and I have discussed before, I made more being a big law firm lawyer and working insane hours (instead of going home earlier and making more time for family) when he chose to make less and enjoy more family time. There is a cost to everything. And no one prevented me from taking a job that paid less but provided more leisure and no one prevent OTB from taking a higher paying job (although he makes a lot by any other standards as a corporate lawyer in any circumstance) and spending less time with family. We all make trade-offs and no one is prevented from pursuing a job that pays more if that is what they are after. But if money is not the main driver (and it is not for many people - I am sure all of us could have made more with sacrifices we were not willing to make), don't make it into the only factor. Apparently, teaching provides sufficient benefits in totality for there to be sufficient number of teachers. If there is, they are not underpaid, and no one is overpaid if someone is willing to pay. If one thinks a job overpays, take it. If you don't, there must be sacrifices that need to be made that you are not willing to make but someone else is. Then it is not an overpaid job.
This reminds me a little bit of the tongue-in-cheek argument "Give teachers a raise? Heck, we should cut their salaries in half. That way, we will know that they're really there because they love teaching kids, not simply because of the money!" (Note that I said "a little bit",.)
Remember in Econ 1 (Did you have it in Wheeler Aud, too?), when you saw a demand curve and you thought, heck, it doesn't matter to me if that widget is 20% cheaper or 20% more expensive. If I need a widget, I'm going to buy a widget!" And yet, there's the curve and it turns out, as price goes up (doesn't matter how much), demand goes down and visa versa. For a variety of reasons.
Same with teacher pay. Right now, the typical teacher takes the job because he/she basically likes it, appreciates the extra time off and is willing to work for that salary. Some combination of that. But if you raise or lower teacher salaries, that is going to affect the quality of teacher that you are able to hire, in the aggregate. It is not the only variable, but it is one variable.
So are we satisfied with the people that have chosen to be teachers? If so, hey, great. If not, one way to get better teachers is to raise their salaries. (other ways, too, of course)
They say, because of demographics, that there is going to be a teacher shortage, so maybe that figures in, too, although I see "remote learning" cheaply solving this challenge (perhaps unfortunately).
If Cal needs to hire football or basket coaches, don't we figure we have a better chance to get good ones if we pay more? If not, maybe we should stick with Cal guys who just love being at Cal. It would save a lot of money.
Now, if you want to pay more because you think the teachers deserve it, that is a different argument altogether. But I don't believe paying little more is going to noticeably increase the quality of the pool of teachers.
sycasey said:Big C said:sycasey said:Big C said:sycasey said:So I just got off a conference call with some of the folks who are in this organization. They've been at it since October and have been around the bend with a lot of the local leaders. Here's what they tell me:sycasey said:
Here's a parents' organization I found that is pushing to get more information about school reopening plans from the district and the union.
https://www.ousdparents.com/
1. The union (OEA) has taken a particularly hard-line stance against reopening. Their demands go way beyond what the CDC, the state, or the county health officials recommend. They don't want to fully reopen until we're effectively in the CDC's blue tier, less than 1 case per 100,000. That basically means "no COVID," which is a standard that might never actually be reached. They made up this chart:
Seems accurate based on the publicly available information of where the latest offers stand from OUSD and OEA.
2. Of course not all teachers agree with this standard, but the most hard-line, activist members rule the roost and have had the most influence over negotiations. They've also sent a lot of propaganda around to stoke fear in their members and also in families at some schools (they tend to target the schools with fewer college-educated parents). So basically they are stalled and have been for months. Maybe vaccination of teachers will help move this along, but no indication yet. If you try to talk about reopening within school communities you are likely to get some teachers or parents who will yell about how you want everyone to die and try to shut down the discussion.
3. The Superintendent and Mayor generally support reopening but are nervous about taking a hard stance against the teachers, for fear it could completely kill the negotiations.
4. The School Board isn't as nutty-activist as the San Francisco board, but at least two members (of 7) are fully union-aligned and fully against reopening (Williams and Hutchinson). A third (Davis) has been pretty aligned with the union most of the way but seems to be wavering under public pressure. The rest are generally open to the idea, but given how contentious it's been with the union are kind of waiting for the state to step in and force their hands.
5. From what they've been able to see of the school sites, they are largely ready to be opened. Masks are ready, air filtration is ready, desks are spaced. All of K-2 could come back to school now and there would be no spacing issues. Of course they haven't been to every school site yet, and sometimes teachers will push back on these claims by saying such-and-such school doesn't have any hand sanitizer or filters or whatever. When they've reached out to those teachers to offer their assistance for fundraising or pushing the district to provide these things, they've been met with silence.
So that's where it appears to stand. I'm not sure anything will move forward without a push from parents and hopefully from teachers within the district now that vaccinations are happening. Another thing being discussed is a lawsuit (which lit a fire under SF's butt) or at least a letter threatening litigation (which got Berkeley to come to a deal). As most of this group is led by white parents, they're also working with the local NAACP and other groups to see if they can get buy-in from communities of color (and perhaps some other families willing to be party to a lawsuit).
So yeah, it's a mess. And I think my suspicions about the union leadership being the big issue here appear to be correct. This problem also seems to stretch back many years, a feeling of distrust between the union and the district, and the union seems to have committed itself to a hard-line position they are finding it hard to get out of. Those of you who have students in the district or wives working for the district may want to also start raising your voices. Reach out to the teachers, principals, PTA, whatever. I wouldn't recommend coming at it from an anti-OEA perspective, just from the standpoint that you want to know what's going on and why we aren't open yet.
Assuming what you're saying is true (and I'm not saying it isn't), this seems to be one of those situations where a union is making an outrageous demand. There should be an end run, or they should just be steamrolled (if possible). As you and others have alluded to, this will cost Oakland teachers the next time they have a reasonable demand. It's unfortunate. Especially for elementary.
Parents could keep the option of their kids staying remote, but, ideally, the Oakland teachers, at least k-6, would go get vaccinated ASAP and then the schools would open up some time next month, at least part time. To not do that defies common sense and common decency.
I'm a recently retired teacher and teachers union supporter (usually) and I wrote this message.
That's just it, normally I would want to support the union too. Part of my frustration is that I think this direction actually harms their own cause and the cause of public education in general. Per what I've been told, the OEA's primary focuses (outside of COVID) are as follows:
1. Reparations for black students (not sure I agree with that, but if you can get the money then okay)
2. Preventing permanent school closures (a bit ironic there)
3. Stopping the proliferation of charter schools (I'm agnostic on this, but I understand why the union would dislike charters)
But if those are your goals, then keeping the district schools closed only means decreasing enrollment that will mean less money for the district (no reparations), schools with empty desks (so they will close down permanently), and more parents looking for other options (like charter schools). It's totally counterproductive. I find this whole situation maddening.
Wow, is that written down somewhere? "Per what I've been told... " might not be too accurate.
A teachers union should serve one main purpose and one secondary purpose:
1. maximize compensation and good working conditions for teachers
2. advocate teachers' expertise on how to improve education
I'm almost reluctant to mention the second one, because #1 is the unions' primary function and the two almost always get intermingled, often with bad results. However, teachers have a valuable voice on how to improve education and that voice needs a conduit, so it often comes through the union. There probably should be an entirely different vehicle for #2.
I know when Oakland teachers went on strike, they talked a lot about the three things you mentioned, since they thought it sounded a lot more high-minded than "we want more money" and would sell better to the public.
I mean, probably a lot of that is high-minded rhetoric overlaying the real goals that are to do as you say. But if you look at their Instagram page, for example, you see a lot of posts about reparations. So it seems accurate as to their publicly stated goals.
Well then, I'm "smh" and not at you, nor at the idea of reparations. I wonder how the "reparations for black students" are going, what with them not being able to be in school. I would figure that one of the OEA's most important concepts that they would want to sell is that STUDENTS BENEFIT GREATLY FROM BEING IN THE CLASSROOM WITH THEIR TEACHERS, not at home in front of a screen.
Big C said:sycasey said:Big C said:sycasey said:Big C said:sycasey said:So I just got off a conference call with some of the folks who are in this organization. They've been at it since October and have been around the bend with a lot of the local leaders. Here's what they tell me:sycasey said:
Here's a parents' organization I found that is pushing to get more information about school reopening plans from the district and the union.
https://www.ousdparents.com/
1. The union (OEA) has taken a particularly hard-line stance against reopening. Their demands go way beyond what the CDC, the state, or the county health officials recommend. They don't want to fully reopen until we're effectively in the CDC's blue tier, less than 1 case per 100,000. That basically means "no COVID," which is a standard that might never actually be reached. They made up this chart:
Seems accurate based on the publicly available information of where the latest offers stand from OUSD and OEA.
2. Of course not all teachers agree with this standard, but the most hard-line, activist members rule the roost and have had the most influence over negotiations. They've also sent a lot of propaganda around to stoke fear in their members and also in families at some schools (they tend to target the schools with fewer college-educated parents). So basically they are stalled and have been for months. Maybe vaccination of teachers will help move this along, but no indication yet. If you try to talk about reopening within school communities you are likely to get some teachers or parents who will yell about how you want everyone to die and try to shut down the discussion.
3. The Superintendent and Mayor generally support reopening but are nervous about taking a hard stance against the teachers, for fear it could completely kill the negotiations.
4. The School Board isn't as nutty-activist as the San Francisco board, but at least two members (of 7) are fully union-aligned and fully against reopening (Williams and Hutchinson). A third (Davis) has been pretty aligned with the union most of the way but seems to be wavering under public pressure. The rest are generally open to the idea, but given how contentious it's been with the union are kind of waiting for the state to step in and force their hands.
5. From what they've been able to see of the school sites, they are largely ready to be opened. Masks are ready, air filtration is ready, desks are spaced. All of K-2 could come back to school now and there would be no spacing issues. Of course they haven't been to every school site yet, and sometimes teachers will push back on these claims by saying such-and-such school doesn't have any hand sanitizer or filters or whatever. When they've reached out to those teachers to offer their assistance for fundraising or pushing the district to provide these things, they've been met with silence.
So that's where it appears to stand. I'm not sure anything will move forward without a push from parents and hopefully from teachers within the district now that vaccinations are happening. Another thing being discussed is a lawsuit (which lit a fire under SF's butt) or at least a letter threatening litigation (which got Berkeley to come to a deal). As most of this group is led by white parents, they're also working with the local NAACP and other groups to see if they can get buy-in from communities of color (and perhaps some other families willing to be party to a lawsuit).
So yeah, it's a mess. And I think my suspicions about the union leadership being the big issue here appear to be correct. This problem also seems to stretch back many years, a feeling of distrust between the union and the district, and the union seems to have committed itself to a hard-line position they are finding it hard to get out of. Those of you who have students in the district or wives working for the district may want to also start raising your voices. Reach out to the teachers, principals, PTA, whatever. I wouldn't recommend coming at it from an anti-OEA perspective, just from the standpoint that you want to know what's going on and why we aren't open yet.
Assuming what you're saying is true (and I'm not saying it isn't), this seems to be one of those situations where a union is making an outrageous demand. There should be an end run, or they should just be steamrolled (if possible). As you and others have alluded to, this will cost Oakland teachers the next time they have a reasonable demand. It's unfortunate. Especially for elementary.
Parents could keep the option of their kids staying remote, but, ideally, the Oakland teachers, at least k-6, would go get vaccinated ASAP and then the schools would open up some time next month, at least part time. To not do that defies common sense and common decency.
I'm a recently retired teacher and teachers union supporter (usually) and I wrote this message.
That's just it, normally I would want to support the union too. Part of my frustration is that I think this direction actually harms their own cause and the cause of public education in general. Per what I've been told, the OEA's primary focuses (outside of COVID) are as follows:
1. Reparations for black students (not sure I agree with that, but if you can get the money then okay)
2. Preventing permanent school closures (a bit ironic there)
3. Stopping the proliferation of charter schools (I'm agnostic on this, but I understand why the union would dislike charters)
But if those are your goals, then keeping the district schools closed only means decreasing enrollment that will mean less money for the district (no reparations), schools with empty desks (so they will close down permanently), and more parents looking for other options (like charter schools). It's totally counterproductive. I find this whole situation maddening.
Wow, is that written down somewhere? "Per what I've been told... " might not be too accurate.
A teachers union should serve one main purpose and one secondary purpose:
1. maximize compensation and good working conditions for teachers
2. advocate teachers' expertise on how to improve education
I'm almost reluctant to mention the second one, because #1 is the unions' primary function and the two almost always get intermingled, often with bad results. However, teachers have a valuable voice on how to improve education and that voice needs a conduit, so it often comes through the union. There probably should be an entirely different vehicle for #2.
I know when Oakland teachers went on strike, they talked a lot about the three things you mentioned, since they thought it sounded a lot more high-minded than "we want more money" and would sell better to the public.
I mean, probably a lot of that is high-minded rhetoric overlaying the real goals that are to do as you say. But if you look at their Instagram page, for example, you see a lot of posts about reparations. So it seems accurate as to their publicly stated goals.
Well then, I'm "smh" and not at you, nor at the idea of reparations. I wonder how the "reparations for black students" are going, what with them not being able to be in school. I would figure that one of the OEA's most important concepts that they would want to sell is that STUDENTS BENEFIT GREATLY FROM BEING IN THE CLASSROOM WITH THEIR TEACHERS, not at home in front of a screen.
You would think.
SFBear92 said:What was your favorite social science to teach? I always enjoyed U.S. History, but my Government teacher was pretty good too. Had to go speak at a public meeting as part of that class though, which represents my first and last time speaking at a school board meeting. Ha.Big C said:SFBear92 said:What level did you teach and if not elementary, what subject?Big C said:
I'm a recently retired teacher and teachers union supporter (usually) and I wrote this message.
High school. Social Science, ESL and foreign language. 19 yrs
All the subjects are interesting to teach, each in their own way, but I found that 11th graders were the most teachable and so that was US History (which I had the least background in when I first started out). Teaching World History the year of 9/11 was amazing and I'm glad my Principal was hands-off enough to let us rewrite the entire curriculum that fall (if she even knew, lol). It always blows me away when there's something MAJOR going on in the world and the Social Science teacher never even addresses it, as they stick to their "required objectives".
For me, it wasn't too hard to have a fair amount of "really good teaching days" teaching Social Science, but it was impossible to have 180 of them... and a huge challenge to have a hundred or more. (180 days = school year) There was a "worksheet day" every now and then, I'm not gonna lie.
Big C said:calbear93 said:Couple of things.LMK5 said:That seems about right. My HS teacher friend mentioned to me he was making $70k about 10 years ago. He owned a home in OC. If his wife was making about the same you can do fine here. Now, we also have to realize that the pay is for 10 months of work with lots of off days, so I think it's pretty good, but I'm not nearly as affluent as most on this board so my yardstick is a little skewed I'll admit.Big C said:LMK5 said:Are teachers still poorly paid or is that less true than it was in the past? My neighbor is an elementary school teacher and she drives a BMW 440i. I know a few teachers and they are all homeowners here and this is an expensive place to live. I know teaching is not a high-paying profession but it seems they do pretty well around here.Big C said:dajo9 said:
Public sector union employees work 20 years, get a pension, then go work in the private sector, essentially getting two incomes off a tax base with lower incomes then 1 of their jobs.
FYI, in California, teachers can't draw retirement until age 55 and, if they choose to do that, they have chosen to draw a significantly smaller monthly, for life. The retirement doesn't get too good until one retires after 60.
If teachers unions are really all that powerful, why are teachers not paid better? Think about it...
Anyway, unless we get a "fourth wave" of COVID really soon, California's K-6 ought to reopen at least part time (hybrid), some time in the next six weeks. Otherwise, something's not right. My wife (elementary OUSD), who has been "semi-vaccine-hesitant", got her first Pfizer yesterday. So line up, teachers! Then open up!
Almost all teachers are in the 50-100,000 dollar range (gross annual salary, not including benefits, but with money taken out of that for retirement, which is basically matched). Most of those are in the 60-80 range. Do you think that's good money? A matter of opinion, I suppose.
BTW my social worker daughter makes far less than the numbers you presented.
It is quite possible that someone who is independently wealthy has chosen to teach, not for money but for the joy of teaching. I may definitely go into teaching in the future, although I suspect it will be more post-graduate than primary. And it would not be for the money.
And I think this idea of paying teachers more will attract better talent or that teachers are underpaid if flawed
If someone who is highly accomplished (the top minds) doesn't go into teaching because of money, no amount of incremental increase will convince her to go into teaching when she can make so much more money (even after any increase) going private, going into consulting, etc. So, someone who could make $200K out of college is going to go into teaching because she can make $110K when she was going to avoid it when she could only make $90K? Don't buy it.
And what is compelling is that there are many things other than salary that makes a job worthwhile. As OTB and I have discussed before, I made more being a big law firm lawyer and working insane hours (instead of going home earlier and making more time for family) when he chose to make less and enjoy more family time. There is a cost to everything. And no one prevented me from taking a job that paid less but provided more leisure and no one prevent OTB from taking a higher paying job (although he makes a lot by any other standards as a corporate lawyer in any circumstance) and spending less time with family. We all make trade-offs and no one is prevented from pursuing a job that pays more if that is what they are after. But if money is not the main driver (and it is not for many people - I am sure all of us could have made more with sacrifices we were not willing to make), don't make it into the only factor. Apparently, teaching provides sufficient benefits in totality for there to be sufficient number of teachers. If there is, they are not underpaid, and no one is overpaid if someone is willing to pay. If one thinks a job overpays, take it. If you don't, there must be sacrifices that need to be made that you are not willing to make but someone else is. Then it is not an overpaid job.
This reminds me a little bit of the tongue-in-cheek argument "Give teachers a raise? Heck, we should cut their salaries in half. That way, we will know that they're really there because they love teaching kids, not simply because of the money!" (Note that I said "a little bit",.)
Remember in Econ 1 (Did you have it in Wheeler Aud, too?), when you saw a demand curve and you thought, heck, it doesn't matter to me if that widget is 20% cheaper or 20% more expensive. If I need a widget, I'm going to buy a widget!" And yet, there's the curve and it turns out, as price goes up (doesn't matter how much), demand goes down and visa versa. For a variety of reasons.
Same with teacher pay. Right now, the typical teacher takes the job because he/she basically likes it, appreciates the extra time off and is willing to work for that salary. Some combination of that. But if you raise or lower teacher salaries, that is going to affect the quality of teacher that you are able to hire, in the aggregate. It is not the only variable, but it is one variable.
So are we satisfied with the people that have chosen to be teachers? If so, hey, great. If not, one way to get better teachers is to raise their salaries. (other ways, too, of course)
They say, because of demographics, that there is going to be a teacher shortage, so maybe that figures in, too, although I see "remote learning" cheaply solving this challenge (perhaps unfortunately).
If Cal needs to hire football or basketball coaches, don't we figure we have a better chance to get good ones if we pay more? If not, maybe we should stick with Cal guys who just love being at Cal. It would save a lot of money.
This post really resonates with me. By far, the #1 reason to pay teachers more is to get better quality teachers.
I always wanted to teach math at the junior high or high school level. Almost everyone in my family and extended family are educators - it's kind of in our blood. But when I found out what teachers got paid, I went the private sector route after graduating from Cal.
I think I would have made a great math teacher (and may still go that route one day!), but I wasn't willing to make that sacrifice at that stage of my life. I truly think I would have gone into education, though, if teacher salaries were more competitive with the private sector.
But people don't want to pay the costs (taxes) it would take to make this happen. I suspect it will never happen.
I remember a few parents complaining when our kids were in preschool that there was a lot of teacher turnover. When I asked them if they'd be willing to pay 50-100% more in tuition so the preschool could pay the teachers a living wage, they looked at me like I had 3 eyes.
So we know the solution, but nobody has the will or desire to change the status quo.
(For the record, I'd be thrilled to pay higher taxes to increase teacher salaries 50%.)
75bear said:Big C said:calbear93 said:Couple of things.LMK5 said:That seems about right. My HS teacher friend mentioned to me he was making $70k about 10 years ago. He owned a home in OC. If his wife was making about the same you can do fine here. Now, we also have to realize that the pay is for 10 months of work with lots of off days, so I think it's pretty good, but I'm not nearly as affluent as most on this board so my yardstick is a little skewed I'll admit.Big C said:LMK5 said:Are teachers still poorly paid or is that less true than it was in the past? My neighbor is an elementary school teacher and she drives a BMW 440i. I know a few teachers and they are all homeowners here and this is an expensive place to live. I know teaching is not a high-paying profession but it seems they do pretty well around here.Big C said:dajo9 said:
Public sector union employees work 20 years, get a pension, then go work in the private sector, essentially getting two incomes off a tax base with lower incomes then 1 of their jobs.
FYI, in California, teachers can't draw retirement until age 55 and, if they choose to do that, they have chosen to draw a significantly smaller monthly, for life. The retirement doesn't get too good until one retires after 60.
If teachers unions are really all that powerful, why are teachers not paid better? Think about it...
Anyway, unless we get a "fourth wave" of COVID really soon, California's K-6 ought to reopen at least part time (hybrid), some time in the next six weeks. Otherwise, something's not right. My wife (elementary OUSD), who has been "semi-vaccine-hesitant", got her first Pfizer yesterday. So line up, teachers! Then open up!
Almost all teachers are in the 50-100,000 dollar range (gross annual salary, not including benefits, but with money taken out of that for retirement, which is basically matched). Most of those are in the 60-80 range. Do you think that's good money? A matter of opinion, I suppose.
BTW my social worker daughter makes far less than the numbers you presented.
It is quite possible that someone who is independently wealthy has chosen to teach, not for money but for the joy of teaching. I may definitely go into teaching in the future, although I suspect it will be more post-graduate than primary. And it would not be for the money.
And I think this idea of paying teachers more will attract better talent or that teachers are underpaid if flawed
If someone who is highly accomplished (the top minds) doesn't go into teaching because of money, no amount of incremental increase will convince her to go into teaching when she can make so much more money (even after any increase) going private, going into consulting, etc. So, someone who could make $200K out of college is going to go into teaching because she can make $110K when she was going to avoid it when she could only make $90K? Don't buy it.
And what is compelling is that there are many things other than salary that makes a job worthwhile. As OTB and I have discussed before, I made more being a big law firm lawyer and working insane hours (instead of going home earlier and making more time for family) when he chose to make less and enjoy more family time. There is a cost to everything. And no one prevented me from taking a job that paid less but provided more leisure and no one prevent OTB from taking a higher paying job (although he makes a lot by any other standards as a corporate lawyer in any circumstance) and spending less time with family. We all make trade-offs and no one is prevented from pursuing a job that pays more if that is what they are after. But if money is not the main driver (and it is not for many people - I am sure all of us could have made more with sacrifices we were not willing to make), don't make it into the only factor. Apparently, teaching provides sufficient benefits in totality for there to be sufficient number of teachers. If there is, they are not underpaid, and no one is overpaid if someone is willing to pay. If one thinks a job overpays, take it. If you don't, there must be sacrifices that need to be made that you are not willing to make but someone else is. Then it is not an overpaid job.
This reminds me a little bit of the tongue-in-cheek argument "Give teachers a raise? Heck, we should cut their salaries in half. That way, we will know that they're really there because they love teaching kids, not simply because of the money!" (Note that I said "a little bit",.)
Remember in Econ 1 (Did you have it in Wheeler Aud, too?), when you saw a demand curve and you thought, heck, it doesn't matter to me if that widget is 20% cheaper or 20% more expensive. If I need a widget, I'm going to buy a widget!" And yet, there's the curve and it turns out, as price goes up (doesn't matter how much), demand goes down and visa versa. For a variety of reasons.
Same with teacher pay. Right now, the typical teacher takes the job because he/she basically likes it, appreciates the extra time off and is willing to work for that salary. Some combination of that. But if you raise or lower teacher salaries, that is going to affect the quality of teacher that you are able to hire, in the aggregate. It is not the only variable, but it is one variable.
So are we satisfied with the people that have chosen to be teachers? If so, hey, great. If not, one way to get better teachers is to raise their salaries. (other ways, too, of course)
They say, because of demographics, that there is going to be a teacher shortage, so maybe that figures in, too, although I see "remote learning" cheaply solving this challenge (perhaps unfortunately).
If Cal needs to hire football or basketball coaches, don't we figure we have a better chance to get good ones if we pay more? If not, maybe we should stick with Cal guys who just love being at Cal. It would save a lot of money.
This post really resonates with me. By far, the #1 reason to pay teachers more is to get better quality teachers.
I always wanted to teach math at the junior high or high school level. Almost everyone in my family and extended family are educators - it's kind of in our blood. But when I found out what teachers got paid, I went the private sector route after graduating from Cal.
I think I would have made a great math teacher (and may still go that route one day!), but I wasn't willing to make that sacrifice at that stage of my life. I truly think I would have gone into education, though, if teacher salaries were more competitive with the private sector.
But people don't want to pay the costs (taxes) it would take to make this happen. I suspect it will never happen.
I remember a few parents complaining when our kids were in preschool that there was a lot of teacher turnover. When I asked them if they'd be willing to pay 50-100% more in tuition so the preschool could pay the teachers a living wage, they looked at me like I had 3 eyes.
So we know the solution, but nobody has the will or desire to change the status quo.
(For the record, I'd be thrilled to pay higher taxes to increase teacher salaries 50%.)
So wouldn't you pay 50% more mostly for the current teachers.? Are you open to firing the bad or averages ones teaching now? How will the union react? So, if you are mainly paying the current pool of teachers 50% more, how long before the existing teachers who now have more incentive to stay longer retire and the exceptional teachers who are just waiting to teach if we would just pay 50% more raise the bar? How much would that cost us? It isn't as if schools have performance based compensation as you would have in private industry that would result in better teachers getting more. Isn't compensation mainly based on seniority?
calbear93 said:75bear said:Big C said:calbear93 said:Couple of things.LMK5 said:That seems about right. My HS teacher friend mentioned to me he was making $70k about 10 years ago. He owned a home in OC. If his wife was making about the same you can do fine here. Now, we also have to realize that the pay is for 10 months of work with lots of off days, so I think it's pretty good, but I'm not nearly as affluent as most on this board so my yardstick is a little skewed I'll admit.Big C said:LMK5 said:Are teachers still poorly paid or is that less true than it was in the past? My neighbor is an elementary school teacher and she drives a BMW 440i. I know a few teachers and they are all homeowners here and this is an expensive place to live. I know teaching is not a high-paying profession but it seems they do pretty well around here.Big C said:dajo9 said:
Public sector union employees work 20 years, get a pension, then go work in the private sector, essentially getting two incomes off a tax base with lower incomes then 1 of their jobs.
FYI, in California, teachers can't draw retirement until age 55 and, if they choose to do that, they have chosen to draw a significantly smaller monthly, for life. The retirement doesn't get too good until one retires after 60.
If teachers unions are really all that powerful, why are teachers not paid better? Think about it...
Anyway, unless we get a "fourth wave" of COVID really soon, California's K-6 ought to reopen at least part time (hybrid), some time in the next six weeks. Otherwise, something's not right. My wife (elementary OUSD), who has been "semi-vaccine-hesitant", got her first Pfizer yesterday. So line up, teachers! Then open up!
Almost all teachers are in the 50-100,000 dollar range (gross annual salary, not including benefits, but with money taken out of that for retirement, which is basically matched). Most of those are in the 60-80 range. Do you think that's good money? A matter of opinion, I suppose.
BTW my social worker daughter makes far less than the numbers you presented.
It is quite possible that someone who is independently wealthy has chosen to teach, not for money but for the joy of teaching. I may definitely go into teaching in the future, although I suspect it will be more post-graduate than primary. And it would not be for the money.
And I think this idea of paying teachers more will attract better talent or that teachers are underpaid if flawed
If someone who is highly accomplished (the top minds) doesn't go into teaching because of money, no amount of incremental increase will convince her to go into teaching when she can make so much more money (even after any increase) going private, going into consulting, etc. So, someone who could make $200K out of college is going to go into teaching because she can make $110K when she was going to avoid it when she could only make $90K? Don't buy it.
And what is compelling is that there are many things other than salary that makes a job worthwhile. As OTB and I have discussed before, I made more being a big law firm lawyer and working insane hours (instead of going home earlier and making more time for family) when he chose to make less and enjoy more family time. There is a cost to everything. And no one prevented me from taking a job that paid less but provided more leisure and no one prevent OTB from taking a higher paying job (although he makes a lot by any other standards as a corporate lawyer in any circumstance) and spending less time with family. We all make trade-offs and no one is prevented from pursuing a job that pays more if that is what they are after. But if money is not the main driver (and it is not for many people - I am sure all of us could have made more with sacrifices we were not willing to make), don't make it into the only factor. Apparently, teaching provides sufficient benefits in totality for there to be sufficient number of teachers. If there is, they are not underpaid, and no one is overpaid if someone is willing to pay. If one thinks a job overpays, take it. If you don't, there must be sacrifices that need to be made that you are not willing to make but someone else is. Then it is not an overpaid job.
This reminds me a little bit of the tongue-in-cheek argument "Give teachers a raise? Heck, we should cut their salaries in half. That way, we will know that they're really there because they love teaching kids, not simply because of the money!" (Note that I said "a little bit",.)
Remember in Econ 1 (Did you have it in Wheeler Aud, too?), when you saw a demand curve and you thought, heck, it doesn't matter to me if that widget is 20% cheaper or 20% more expensive. If I need a widget, I'm going to buy a widget!" And yet, there's the curve and it turns out, as price goes up (doesn't matter how much), demand goes down and visa versa. For a variety of reasons.
Same with teacher pay. Right now, the typical teacher takes the job because he/she basically likes it, appreciates the extra time off and is willing to work for that salary. Some combination of that. But if you raise or lower teacher salaries, that is going to affect the quality of teacher that you are able to hire, in the aggregate. It is not the only variable, but it is one variable.
So are we satisfied with the people that have chosen to be teachers? If so, hey, great. If not, one way to get better teachers is to raise their salaries. (other ways, too, of course)
They say, because of demographics, that there is going to be a teacher shortage, so maybe that figures in, too, although I see "remote learning" cheaply solving this challenge (perhaps unfortunately).
If Cal needs to hire football or basketball coaches, don't we figure we have a better chance to get good ones if we pay more? If not, maybe we should stick with Cal guys who just love being at Cal. It would save a lot of money.
This post really resonates with me. By far, the #1 reason to pay teachers more is to get better quality teachers.
I always wanted to teach math at the junior high or high school level. Almost everyone in my family and extended family are educators - it's kind of in our blood. But when I found out what teachers got paid, I went the private sector route after graduating from Cal.
I think I would have made a great math teacher (and may still go that route one day!), but I wasn't willing to make that sacrifice at that stage of my life. I truly think I would have gone into education, though, if teacher salaries were more competitive with the private sector.
But people don't want to pay the costs (taxes) it would take to make this happen. I suspect it will never happen.
I remember a few parents complaining when our kids were in preschool that there was a lot of teacher turnover. When I asked them if they'd be willing to pay 50-100% more in tuition so the preschool could pay the teachers a living wage, they looked at me like I had 3 eyes.
So we know the solution, but nobody has the will or desire to change the status quo.
(For the record, I'd be thrilled to pay higher taxes to increase teacher salaries 50%.)
So wouldn't you pay 50% more mostly for the current teachers.? Are you open to firing the bad or averages ones teaching now? How will the union react? So, if you are mainly paying the current pool of teachers 50% more, how long before the existing teachers who now have more incentive to stay longer retire and the exceptional teachers who are just waiting to teach if we would just pay 50% more raise the bar? How much would that cost us? It isn't as if schools have performance based compensation as you would have in private industry that would result in better teachers getting more. Isn't compensation mainly based on seniority?
You bring up good points. In an ideal world, a 50% raise would come with more ability to assess teachers. Part of the reason you need tenure, pensions, etc are the low salaries. And yes - some "bad" teachers may stay on longer. But I'm looking at this from a 10,000 foot view, and all these details could be worked out (some over time).
75bear said:calbear93 said:75bear said:Big C said:calbear93 said:Couple of things.LMK5 said:That seems about right. My HS teacher friend mentioned to me he was making $70k about 10 years ago. He owned a home in OC. If his wife was making about the same you can do fine here. Now, we also have to realize that the pay is for 10 months of work with lots of off days, so I think it's pretty good, but I'm not nearly as affluent as most on this board so my yardstick is a little skewed I'll admit.Big C said:LMK5 said:Are teachers still poorly paid or is that less true than it was in the past? My neighbor is an elementary school teacher and she drives a BMW 440i. I know a few teachers and they are all homeowners here and this is an expensive place to live. I know teaching is not a high-paying profession but it seems they do pretty well around here.Big C said:dajo9 said:
Public sector union employees work 20 years, get a pension, then go work in the private sector, essentially getting two incomes off a tax base with lower incomes then 1 of their jobs.
FYI, in California, teachers can't draw retirement until age 55 and, if they choose to do that, they have chosen to draw a significantly smaller monthly, for life. The retirement doesn't get too good until one retires after 60.
If teachers unions are really all that powerful, why are teachers not paid better? Think about it...
Anyway, unless we get a "fourth wave" of COVID really soon, California's K-6 ought to reopen at least part time (hybrid), some time in the next six weeks. Otherwise, something's not right. My wife (elementary OUSD), who has been "semi-vaccine-hesitant", got her first Pfizer yesterday. So line up, teachers! Then open up!
Almost all teachers are in the 50-100,000 dollar range (gross annual salary, not including benefits, but with money taken out of that for retirement, which is basically matched). Most of those are in the 60-80 range. Do you think that's good money? A matter of opinion, I suppose.
BTW my social worker daughter makes far less than the numbers you presented.
It is quite possible that someone who is independently wealthy has chosen to teach, not for money but for the joy of teaching. I may definitely go into teaching in the future, although I suspect it will be more post-graduate than primary. And it would not be for the money.
And I think this idea of paying teachers more will attract better talent or that teachers are underpaid if flawed
If someone who is highly accomplished (the top minds) doesn't go into teaching because of money, no amount of incremental increase will convince her to go into teaching when she can make so much more money (even after any increase) going private, going into consulting, etc. So, someone who could make $200K out of college is going to go into teaching because she can make $110K when she was going to avoid it when she could only make $90K? Don't buy it.
And what is compelling is that there are many things other than salary that makes a job worthwhile. As OTB and I have discussed before, I made more being a big law firm lawyer and working insane hours (instead of going home earlier and making more time for family) when he chose to make less and enjoy more family time. There is a cost to everything. And no one prevented me from taking a job that paid less but provided more leisure and no one prevent OTB from taking a higher paying job (although he makes a lot by any other standards as a corporate lawyer in any circumstance) and spending less time with family. We all make trade-offs and no one is prevented from pursuing a job that pays more if that is what they are after. But if money is not the main driver (and it is not for many people - I am sure all of us could have made more with sacrifices we were not willing to make), don't make it into the only factor. Apparently, teaching provides sufficient benefits in totality for there to be sufficient number of teachers. If there is, they are not underpaid, and no one is overpaid if someone is willing to pay. If one thinks a job overpays, take it. If you don't, there must be sacrifices that need to be made that you are not willing to make but someone else is. Then it is not an overpaid job.
This reminds me a little bit of the tongue-in-cheek argument "Give teachers a raise? Heck, we should cut their salaries in half. That way, we will know that they're really there because they love teaching kids, not simply because of the money!" (Note that I said "a little bit",.)
Remember in Econ 1 (Did you have it in Wheeler Aud, too?), when you saw a demand curve and you thought, heck, it doesn't matter to me if that widget is 20% cheaper or 20% more expensive. If I need a widget, I'm going to buy a widget!" And yet, there's the curve and it turns out, as price goes up (doesn't matter how much), demand goes down and visa versa. For a variety of reasons.
Same with teacher pay. Right now, the typical teacher takes the job because he/she basically likes it, appreciates the extra time off and is willing to work for that salary. Some combination of that. But if you raise or lower teacher salaries, that is going to affect the quality of teacher that you are able to hire, in the aggregate. It is not the only variable, but it is one variable.
So are we satisfied with the people that have chosen to be teachers? If so, hey, great. If not, one way to get better teachers is to raise their salaries. (other ways, too, of course)
They say, because of demographics, that there is going to be a teacher shortage, so maybe that figures in, too, although I see "remote learning" cheaply solving this challenge (perhaps unfortunately).
If Cal needs to hire football or basketball coaches, don't we figure we have a better chance to get good ones if we pay more? If not, maybe we should stick with Cal guys who just love being at Cal. It would save a lot of money.
This post really resonates with me. By far, the #1 reason to pay teachers more is to get better quality teachers.
I always wanted to teach math at the junior high or high school level. Almost everyone in my family and extended family are educators - it's kind of in our blood. But when I found out what teachers got paid, I went the private sector route after graduating from Cal.
I think I would have made a great math teacher (and may still go that route one day!), but I wasn't willing to make that sacrifice at that stage of my life. I truly think I would have gone into education, though, if teacher salaries were more competitive with the private sector.
But people don't want to pay the costs (taxes) it would take to make this happen. I suspect it will never happen.
I remember a few parents complaining when our kids were in preschool that there was a lot of teacher turnover. When I asked them if they'd be willing to pay 50-100% more in tuition so the preschool could pay the teachers a living wage, they looked at me like I had 3 eyes.
So we know the solution, but nobody has the will or desire to change the status quo.
(For the record, I'd be thrilled to pay higher taxes to increase teacher salaries 50%.)
So wouldn't you pay 50% more mostly for the current teachers.? Are you open to firing the bad or averages ones teaching now? How will the union react? So, if you are mainly paying the current pool of teachers 50% more, how long before the existing teachers who now have more incentive to stay longer retire and the exceptional teachers who are just waiting to teach if we would just pay 50% more raise the bar? How much would that cost us? It isn't as if schools have performance based compensation as you would have in private industry that would result in better teachers getting more. Isn't compensation mainly based on seniority?
You bring up good points. In an ideal world, a 50% raise would come with more ability to assess teachers. Part of the reason you need tenure, pensions, etc are the low salaries. And yes - some "bad" teachers may stay on longer. But I'm looking at this from a 10,000 foot view, and all these details could be worked out (some over time).
If the top teachers were getting more and the underperforming teachers were getting less or replaced, and there was a way to measure quality and track quality improvement in teaching for the additional costs, I think most would be in favor of an increase. For most if us, if we were paying for increased cost directly, we would want to ensure some value for the additional cost. Think how price conscious the consumers are. The fact that the government does not exercise the same fiduciary duty with our money that I would expect from a trustee makes me gun shy about thinking just taxing more so the government can spend more as the first and best solution. It may be in many cases, but the government just hasn't earned that blind trust.
Absolutely. And let's say we did agree to pay teachers more. How do we measure the quality of that teacher? And if we are able to measure that quality and it doesn't measure up, can that teacher be replaced? That's how it's done in the real world.calbear93 said:75bear said:calbear93 said:75bear said:Big C said:calbear93 said:Couple of things.LMK5 said:That seems about right. My HS teacher friend mentioned to me he was making $70k about 10 years ago. He owned a home in OC. If his wife was making about the same you can do fine here. Now, we also have to realize that the pay is for 10 months of work with lots of off days, so I think it's pretty good, but I'm not nearly as affluent as most on this board so my yardstick is a little skewed I'll admit.Big C said:LMK5 said:Are teachers still poorly paid or is that less true than it was in the past? My neighbor is an elementary school teacher and she drives a BMW 440i. I know a few teachers and they are all homeowners here and this is an expensive place to live. I know teaching is not a high-paying profession but it seems they do pretty well around here.Big C said:dajo9 said:
Public sector union employees work 20 years, get a pension, then go work in the private sector, essentially getting two incomes off a tax base with lower incomes then 1 of their jobs.
FYI, in California, teachers can't draw retirement until age 55 and, if they choose to do that, they have chosen to draw a significantly smaller monthly, for life. The retirement doesn't get too good until one retires after 60.
If teachers unions are really all that powerful, why are teachers not paid better? Think about it...
Anyway, unless we get a "fourth wave" of COVID really soon, California's K-6 ought to reopen at least part time (hybrid), some time in the next six weeks. Otherwise, something's not right. My wife (elementary OUSD), who has been "semi-vaccine-hesitant", got her first Pfizer yesterday. So line up, teachers! Then open up!
Almost all teachers are in the 50-100,000 dollar range (gross annual salary, not including benefits, but with money taken out of that for retirement, which is basically matched). Most of those are in the 60-80 range. Do you think that's good money? A matter of opinion, I suppose.
BTW my social worker daughter makes far less than the numbers you presented.
It is quite possible that someone who is independently wealthy has chosen to teach, not for money but for the joy of teaching. I may definitely go into teaching in the future, although I suspect it will be more post-graduate than primary. And it would not be for the money.
And I think this idea of paying teachers more will attract better talent or that teachers are underpaid if flawed
If someone who is highly accomplished (the top minds) doesn't go into teaching because of money, no amount of incremental increase will convince her to go into teaching when she can make so much more money (even after any increase) going private, going into consulting, etc. So, someone who could make $200K out of college is going to go into teaching because she can make $110K when she was going to avoid it when she could only make $90K? Don't buy it.
And what is compelling is that there are many things other than salary that makes a job worthwhile. As OTB and I have discussed before, I made more being a big law firm lawyer and working insane hours (instead of going home earlier and making more time for family) when he chose to make less and enjoy more family time. There is a cost to everything. And no one prevented me from taking a job that paid less but provided more leisure and no one prevent OTB from taking a higher paying job (although he makes a lot by any other standards as a corporate lawyer in any circumstance) and spending less time with family. We all make trade-offs and no one is prevented from pursuing a job that pays more if that is what they are after. But if money is not the main driver (and it is not for many people - I am sure all of us could have made more with sacrifices we were not willing to make), don't make it into the only factor. Apparently, teaching provides sufficient benefits in totality for there to be sufficient number of teachers. If there is, they are not underpaid, and no one is overpaid if someone is willing to pay. If one thinks a job overpays, take it. If you don't, there must be sacrifices that need to be made that you are not willing to make but someone else is. Then it is not an overpaid job.
This reminds me a little bit of the tongue-in-cheek argument "Give teachers a raise? Heck, we should cut their salaries in half. That way, we will know that they're really there because they love teaching kids, not simply because of the money!" (Note that I said "a little bit",.)
Remember in Econ 1 (Did you have it in Wheeler Aud, too?), when you saw a demand curve and you thought, heck, it doesn't matter to me if that widget is 20% cheaper or 20% more expensive. If I need a widget, I'm going to buy a widget!" And yet, there's the curve and it turns out, as price goes up (doesn't matter how much), demand goes down and visa versa. For a variety of reasons.
Same with teacher pay. Right now, the typical teacher takes the job because he/she basically likes it, appreciates the extra time off and is willing to work for that salary. Some combination of that. But if you raise or lower teacher salaries, that is going to affect the quality of teacher that you are able to hire, in the aggregate. It is not the only variable, but it is one variable.
So are we satisfied with the people that have chosen to be teachers? If so, hey, great. If not, one way to get better teachers is to raise their salaries. (other ways, too, of course)
They say, because of demographics, that there is going to be a teacher shortage, so maybe that figures in, too, although I see "remote learning" cheaply solving this challenge (perhaps unfortunately).
If Cal needs to hire football or basketball coaches, don't we figure we have a better chance to get good ones if we pay more? If not, maybe we should stick with Cal guys who just love being at Cal. It would save a lot of money.
This post really resonates with me. By far, the #1 reason to pay teachers more is to get better quality teachers.
I always wanted to teach math at the junior high or high school level. Almost everyone in my family and extended family are educators - it's kind of in our blood. But when I found out what teachers got paid, I went the private sector route after graduating from Cal.
I think I would have made a great math teacher (and may still go that route one day!), but I wasn't willing to make that sacrifice at that stage of my life. I truly think I would have gone into education, though, if teacher salaries were more competitive with the private sector.
But people don't want to pay the costs (taxes) it would take to make this happen. I suspect it will never happen.
I remember a few parents complaining when our kids were in preschool that there was a lot of teacher turnover. When I asked them if they'd be willing to pay 50-100% more in tuition so the preschool could pay the teachers a living wage, they looked at me like I had 3 eyes.
So we know the solution, but nobody has the will or desire to change the status quo.
(For the record, I'd be thrilled to pay higher taxes to increase teacher salaries 50%.)
So wouldn't you pay 50% more mostly for the current teachers.? Are you open to firing the bad or averages ones teaching now? How will the union react? So, if you are mainly paying the current pool of teachers 50% more, how long before the existing teachers who now have more incentive to stay longer retire and the exceptional teachers who are just waiting to teach if we would just pay 50% more raise the bar? How much would that cost us? It isn't as if schools have performance based compensation as you would have in private industry that would result in better teachers getting more. Isn't compensation mainly based on seniority?
You bring up good points. In an ideal world, a 50% raise would come with more ability to assess teachers. Part of the reason you need tenure, pensions, etc are the low salaries. And yes - some "bad" teachers may stay on longer. But I'm looking at this from a 10,000 foot view, and all these details could be worked out (some over time).
If the top teachers were getting more and the underperforming teachers were getting less or replaced, and there was a way to measure quality and track quality improvement in teaching for the additional costs, I think most would be in favor of an increase. For most if us, if we were paying for increased cost directly, we would want to ensure some value for the additional cost. Think how price conscious the consumers are. The fact that the government does not exercise the same fiduciary duty with our money that I would expect from a trustee makes me gun shy about thinking just taxing more so the government can spend more as the first and best solution. It may be in many cases, but the government just hasn't earned that blind trust.
Can we ascertain the quality of a potential teacher by looking at college GPA or other standing? I ask this because some of the most accomplished people (think Nobel laureates) don't make very good teachers. Most great teachers are assessed that way after many years of practice and they gain that reputation from the students and parents (in the case of k-12).
The truth lies somewhere between CNN and Fox.
Featured Stories
See All
From Physicality to Bagels: Meet Cal's inside linebacker room
by Joaquin Ruiz
Cal Football Spring Game Set For April 18
by Cal Athletics
4 Star Sierra Canyon Safety Myles Baker Commits to Cal
by Jim McGill
The Benson Blog - Postseason Awards
by Rod Benson