Teachers overpaid

[billy_56081]

"has grown by 50% to 16.8%" Ah I have been out of school for a few years now and I am not sure how 16.8% is 50%? Danged old facts!

[billy_56081]

And NONE of them state that thse teachers are leaving for higher pay. I seem to remember my senior english teacher leaving after our senior year. They school board didn't like the fact he was boinking one of his students.

[kevinsmith5]

It's percentage increase. Say you have ten apples one week and 15 apples the next week. You increased by 5, 5 divided by 10 is .5, multiplied by 100% to convert to percentage gives you 50% increase. See?

[kevinsmith5]

Okay Billy, since you don't seem to want to read those links I posted they say it is a combination of low pay, lack of administrative and community support, and poor working conditions. If you think half of all new teachers get caught boinking a student in the first five years your living in a land of delusion greater than the people who think the commerce clause justifies a individual health insurance mandate.

[billy_56081]

"The fact that roughly 50% of teachers move in to other, higher paying, careers within 5 years of starting teaching"
 
Ah no! This is what you said. 16.8% is not 50%.

[kevinsmith5]

Wow, math is not a strong suit with people who think teachers are overpaid. Or reading comprehension. Good GOD.......

[kevinsmith5]

"Already %46 of new teachers leave the profession within five years". Please try reading it next time Billy....

[kevinsmith5]

That's 16.8% per YEAR..... I said in five YEARS....did you read that or just skim it?

[billy_56081]

It said " increased 50% to 16.8%", wow if you are a teacher no wonder our schools are in such terrible shape.

[billy_56081]

"NCTAF’s findings are a clear indication that America’s teacher dropout problem is spiraling out of control.  Teacher attrition has grown by 50 percent over the past fifteen years.  The national teacher turnover rate has risen to 16.8 percent.  In urban schools it is over 20 percent, and, in some schools and districts, the teacher dropout rate is actually higher than the student dropout rate.  The pilot study shows:"
 
Skim over that I cut and pasted it.

[kevinsmith5]

16.8% is per year. I said in 5 years. Copy and paste at will, you just showed me to be right. So does that mean you agree with me now?

[kevinsmith5]

Can you genuinely not tell that you're wrong or are you just refusing to admit it?

[kevinsmith5]

"Already %46 of new teachers leave the profession within five years, and now reformers want to make it even less appealing for teachers to make teaching a career." That's from two paragraphs down from where you just copied from.

[billy_56081]

"risen to 16.8%". Wow reading comprehension skills are lacking.

[kevinsmith5]

Yes, they are, but on your part. Let me try this ONE MORE TIME. Teacher turnover rate is 16.8% per year. That's of all teachers. I said that roughly 50% of all teachers leave teaching in their first five years. You are determined to believe that this article does not support my claim when it clearly does. It even says flat out that I am right like halfway down the page from where you're focused on. If 16.8% of them leave per year, what is the cumulative turnover after five years (granted that some of them are positions that turnover multiple times)?

[mcwoodduck]

Yes, they are, but on your part. Let me try this ONE MORE TIME. Teacher turnover rate is 16.8% per year. That's of all teachers. I said that roughly 50% of all teachers leave teaching in their first five years. You are determined to believe that this article does not support my claim when it clearly does. It even says flat out that I am right like halfway down the page from where you're focused on. If 16.8% of them leave per year, what is the cumulative turnover after five years (granted that some of them are positions that turnover multiple times)?

I applaud your taking the adgenda teacher to task, but you can see how we get the idea that taeachers are not teaching.  When we hear that the State of Ca is ordering new copies of "why Sara has two mommies" for all schools but do not have enough Math books and are teaching English in Spanish (I kid you not).  As the old saying goes "as California goes, so does the rest of the country".
With the amount of teachers that Colleges produce each year, there must be a pretty high turn over rate to employ them.  My guess is the larger cities and the wide eyed energetic liberals  fresh from school are the ones that can not handle the 6 hour work day.
I also wonder how old those statistics are?  Growing up many of my teachers, as soon as they went on maturnity leave were gone for a long time.
 

[DDZ]

The tendency to conflate a local condition to the national level never ceases to amaze me. You live in a high wealth area where teaching is easy (many teachers say the pay would be less if a issue with greater oarental support) and pay is higher and suddenly it's okay to bad mouth all teachers based on your limited experience. As for a source on the teacher turnover rate....I'm on my phone right now but perhaps you've heard of this new thing called Google.... But what your research shows you won't matter, you've decided what you know already.

No I don't live in a high wealth area. I live in an area where the teachers union runs the school district and places demands on tax payers, if they don't get their way, they go on strike. 

[kevinsmith5]

Woodduck- the statistics are from 2008, the most recent for which data is available. As for "as California goes, so goes the country" that was true in the 70's but school systems nationwide long since caught on that California's education plans were a recipe for disaster. Growing up military and attending 9 different schools from k-12 I took the CAT (California Achievement Test) in 3 different states (none of which were California. Now days no one uses that anymore, not even California.

[kevinsmith5]

DDZ- less than 1/3 of all teachers in the country are members of unions. In my state it's zero since NC is a right to work state. Once again we are seeing a local issue being talked about like it is a universal truth.

[ironglow]

Again; the unions place demands which make (correction;... prevent) the automatic levelling which a normal, free-market economy does.  The unions insist that all be paid and treated the same, regardless how efficient, capable, dedicated or competent they are.  Instead, they are paid and rewarded by some type of artificial standards such as "time spent holding down a chair", degrees earned (or given) and other more or less inconsequential criteria.
    It seems a first rate teacher as in any other vocation, would prefer to compete to produce more eager and motivated students than other teachers in the same basic socio-economic area and thus, EARN the higher wages and benefits.
       Admittedly, disruptive students are probably a major inhibiter to smooth classroom function but here is an area worthy of a union's attention.  Instead of spending time and capital defending incompetents, perhaps these unions should be demanding the disruptive students be placed in a more rigidly controlled environment, with opportunities to EARN their way out.
    A best case scenario would be for the school to work like the real world, pay, benefits and recognition EARNED.
 
     Is it just possible that new teachers, seeing the way the "old ways" (union) artificially prop up a failing system, simply leave for 'greener pastures'...where their individual initive, ability and creativity will not bridle them from EARNING their best possible vocational/financial situation.
 
   You will note my emphasis on the individual EARNING his/her honors and remunerations, exactly what the unions seem to repress.
 
   I have no doubts there are many fine, competent teachers but there are also numerous slackers.  Why should the quality be lumped in with the non-producer, let each one's capability and effort speak for itself !
 
  The Marxist dialectic says,  ... " From each according to his ability, to each according to his need".
         
          How do unions differ from Marxism...or don't they ?

[gypsyman]

Ironglow, you have to remember, in the real world, unions defend the incompetent worker, and he/she will get the same pay as a productive one. Why should it be any different in the teachers union?gypsyman

[ironglow]

Ironglow, you have to remember, in the real world, unions defend the incompetent worker, and he/she will get the same pay as a productive one. Why should it be any different in the teachers union?gypsyman

  ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
     Oops !  My wording was faulty, I should have said,... "unions make demands which prevent the automatic levelling" !  I made corrections in red, read it that way and it may be more clear...sorry.
 
  In a real world, non-union situation..the cream rises to the top !  Or as bullet casters can tell us, the scum is exposed where the dross can be scooped off and disposed of.
   Perhaps some of these teachers who only stayed a short time were some of the best but realizing that in spite of their best efforts, they would only be allowed to achieve "average" pay, benefits and recognition.

[mcwoodduck]

"The fact that roughly 50% of teachers move in to other, higher paying, careers within 5 years of starting teaching"
 
Ah no! This is what you said. 16.8% is not 50%.

Billy,
It's the new liberal Math
You round up to what ever percentage makes your point.
Listen to Obama he uses it all the time. " a Majority of the people want the heath care bill, when less than 30% wanted socialized medicine by even the most liberal of polls.

[guzzijohn]

Quote from mcwoodduck:
"Listen to Obama he uses it all the time. " a Majority of the people want the heath care bill, when less than 30% wanted socialized medicine by even the most liberal of polls."


Lets watch our numbers on both sides. A brief Google search shows Gallup saying 45% in favor and Rasmussenreports says 42% in favor. A bit above 30%. Just sayin.
GuzziJohn

[mcwoodduck]

That's one of the main reasons, if not the main reason, BHO got elected...to reform/stabilize the HC system, unfortunately that didn't happen--quite the opposite again. Alot of other broken campaign promises, too.
 
..TM7

Unfortunatly I realized a while ago that the Democrats do not want to fix a problem.  The want to demigog the problem and make a tempory bandaid so they can revisit the same problem that has gotten larger over time in order to institute their ultimate goal.  Teddy Kennedy came out with the HMO comcept and statedthat it would solve all of health cares problems, knowing that as costs increased, and as the government mandtated more and more of the HMOs cost would make more people un happy.
Unfortunatly we have a school system that does not teach costs and price.  We have a school system that teaches deserve, you deserve everything you want no matter who has to pay for it.
The statistics I saw was for total socialized medicine rather than Obama care where "you will be allowed to keep your current plan"  Also the 42% was before the health care bill was passed, you know by a transparent adminastration that through Pelosi said you need to pass it to read it?  Once peopel read the bill and understood it was never intended to allow you to keep your own plan and to funnel everyone into a single payer plan, the williness to be in the Obam care plan went down.  Everyione liked the idea of cheaper health care by 2500 per family has now dropped by the presidents own words to costing 300 more per family than current plans on average.  That is a 2800 per family incrase if you use base line budgeting.  And now the Gov't is comming out with doing less and less screening for cancers.  Why?  Fewer people = fewer costs, and preventing or catching cancer early maens people live longer.

[ironglow]

Quote from mcwoodduck:
"Listen to Obama he uses it all the time. " a Majority of the people want the heath care bill, when less than 30% wanted socialized medicine by even the most liberal of polls."


Lets watch our numbers on both sides. A brief Google search shows Gallup saying 45% in favor and Rasmussenreports says 42% in favor. A bit above 30%. Just sayin.
GuzziJohn

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
   There seems to be some type of disconnect operating here.  While I suppose a percentage may be convinced that 'some kind' of HC plan is needed, when we turn to Obamacare itself, things start to flesh out.
   http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/28/poll-obamacare-support-hits-all-time-low/
    Looks like about 51% vs 34%....  Of course, there is likely about 30% who would prefer the government wipe their nose (or whatever else), and they don't mind surrendering their freedom ..and their children's freedom for it !

[kevinsmith5]

Woodduck- you and Billy appear to be insisting in believing that 16.8% leaving every year means that 46% can't be leaving in five. I'm starting to think you aren't actually reading any of the articles or even other people's posts. Multiply 16 times 5.....then realize how many of those jobs must go through multiple people in a short turn around. I've seen the same algebra teaching job at one school go through four different teachers in five years.

[jcn59]

I've been registered here for several years and it amazes me how many people I have come to know to be intelligent have bought into this thread.  Did you ever hear of the concept of "Divide & Conquer"?  This is EXACTLY how our government "runs" the populace (you).  Get people worrying about how much their neighbor earns.  Get the focus off the trillions that our federal government steals from us; the millions that the state gov't. steals from us!  Put the focus and energy on how teachers are overpaid.  And you bought into it.......shame!    Maybe if you put 1/10 the the effort into something that could make a difference....like chewing out your congressman...

There, I'm off my "stump"  (pedestal).  Who wants to climb up and take my place.

[mcwoodduck]

Woodduck- you and Billy appear to be insisting in believing that 16.8% leaving every year means that 46% can't be leaving in five. I'm starting to think you aren't actually reading any of the articles or even other people's posts. Multiply 16 times 5.....then realize how many of those jobs must go through multiple people in a short turn around. I've seen the same algebra teaching job at one school go through four different teachers in five years.

I thought I agreed with you that many can leave with in 5 years.
I remember many teachers leaving for maturnity leave.  To show back up again as their kids entered middle or High school or left the house.
And with the number of teachers colleges are turning out each year  You would have to have a pretty high turn over rate.  If each school has 40 teachers you would only need two or three new teachers a year for each school as teachers retire after 30 or 40 years, like my aunt.  A lot of what finally made her retire out of Texas was the silly adgenda teaching.  The Man made global warming, the new spelling, the English classes in Spanish, the rewritting of history,  the skimming over of important events in our history that have made the US unique and focused on what has made us ordinary, and the indoctranation of Homo Sexual life style in her grade school.

[kevinsmith5]

2/40 is 5%. And did you bother to read the whole thing? Where it says "46% of new teachers leave in the first five years"? This one study comes out that disagrees with every other study done and tons of people jump up with "told ya so!" even when simple logic and basic economic principles say your WRING. And the study isn't talking about maternity leave, it's talking about going to another career. I've had fellow teachers leave to work at ad companies (English teachers), accounting firms, defense contractors, the department of agriculture, the list goes on...