All, in general, I think that arguments over teacher pay, regardless of specific details or numbers, come down to the fact that there are good teachers and bad teachers, and they are generally paid the same.

So one side can say that teachers are underpaid, and I would agree that it is true that good teachers are underpaid. And the other side can say that bad teachers are overpaid, and I would also agree that bad teachers are overpaid.

The model for teacher compensation is broken. Pay increases and distributions need to be based on more than simply years spent teaching, and have much more to do with quality, skill, achievements, accomplishments, etc.

The overall quality level of average teachers needs to be raised, and bad teachers should be fired, and good teachers should be rewarded. The current system usually does not do that.

That overall situation is what needs to be fixed, not arguing over specific numbers or small raises for the overall teacher population.


ETA: That is a general meta-level issue though. As regards these specific strikes, from what I know of the situation, the teachers deserve pay increases, and the entire education system needs more funding, and it seems hard to argue against that.

LOL I knew before opening the thread some GOP slappy would be whining about how easy teachers have it.

I've dated 5 teachers in my life. All used personal funds for the classroom. Things like stickers, coloring books, crayons, etc. All had to go through training during the summer to catch up on laws, licenses, etc. All would wake up at 5 AM at times to get to school early to help students in need. Oftentimes, they wouldn't get home til 8-9 PM.

And of course none of this matters to GOP slappies. They focus on their ****ty ass kid that goes to school 9-2:30, doesn't put in an effort, gets bad grades, and blames it on the teacher by assuming the teacher is putting in the same 9-2:30 hours as their kid.

No.

I wouldn't say they are paid well but they aren't paid bad either; where as it's accepted dogma in many circles that teachers are (drastically) underpaid.

I'll even help you out here and link some relevant data.

As you'll see teachers fare pretty well in nominal terms against pretty much anyone who isn't in healthcare, finance, management, sciences, or legal.

A few problems:

1.) The groups teachers look underpaid relative to are only something on the order of 20% of the working poulation.

2.) Despite what many people are schreeching itt, teachers work many less hours than regular full time workers.

3.) Nominal pay doesn't account for the massive value of defined benefit pensions.

So I'll reiterate. Yea, OK teachers have it kind of ****ty, but most everyone else in their state has it ****tier and you want all those people to dig deep and send more of what little they have to an already protected class.

No thanks.

This is precisely the sort of false choice that has been propagandized and that people are calling out ITT (for public workers to get more, middle class private workers must get less). How about we just tax the rich?

The OK teachers aren’t getting anything close to national averages.

If, in the current political environment, you spend any time complaining about teachers, you're telling on yourself.

LOL...you do realize that on the same page from the BLS you found the median salary was also this direct quote:

High school teachers generally work school hours, which vary from school to school. However, they often spend time in the evenings and on weekends grading papers and preparing lessons. In addition, they may meet with parents, students, and other teachers before and after school. Plus, teachers who coach sports or advise clubs generally do so before or after school.



Reading it difficult, I understand.

I mean God forbid we make teaching children a lucrative job that attracts quality people.

trickle down though. only way to increase their pay is on the backs of the downtrodden or some other wonky right wing theory...

A 16 hour day for a teacher is doable if they are coaching or supervising extracurricular activities.

You seem pretty uneducated or at best untethered from reality. Why don't you learn about a very simple economic concept called externalities and then get back to us about how smart it is to give huge tax breaks to oil companies (with lots of negative externalities) all while robbing the money to do it from the education system and the state health department (with lots of positive externalities).

It is clear your entire worldview is based on some very faulty footing. We all benefit from better public education. We should all want better public education. The fact you seem to think the situation in states like Oklahoma is not only ok but that the teachers are in some above average working environment (especially based on their education level) is completely absurd. You are picking Harold Hamm geting a little bit richer (yes he was at the Oklahoma capitol pushing against increased education funding so that he could make even more billions) over something that literally benefits the other 99.99999999% of us. This isn;t or at least shouldn't be a political argument. The only people making your argument are literally horrible selfish people who also happen to be dumb because they are against something that is unquestionably a good thing.

Missing from this discussion: For tea party legislators, the defunding of education is an ideological conviction. They do not want training in critical thinking. Destroying public education is the way to drive students into creationist charter schools that do not even believe in science. For these types, the deterioration of buildings and teachers buying supplies are proof of progress.

This is so wrong-headed. In my town there is a little Christian white flight school where teachers do not even get benefits. (This was due to Obamacare, one applicant was told.) A couple of Augusts ago it lost like a quarter or third of its students all at once. Standardized test scores had been released.

It's worth pointing out some of the conversations is muddled because most teachers, as the data suggests, are actually reasonably well compensated. Full-time gigs at well-off public school systems (which actually is most of the systems in the US, including some major urban systems with poor populations after federal and state aids are included) are extremely competitive and sought after. They don't pay the highest salaries but MANY people seek those jobs out for financial stability.

This does not detract from the fact we for god knows why don't respect teachers as real professionals on the same level as professionals in other fields requiring BA/MA at a minimum. Nor does it detract from the fact in a lot of school systems, the OK ones in particular, teachers have justifiable grievances and are massively underpaid/exploited while being asked to work with virtually no resources.

I mean, you keep trying to talk down to people, but what the **** are you talking about? Are the OK teachers specifically demanding like an increase in fees from poor people to buy new books?

"protected class" GTFO

(hating teachers is highly correlated with people who vastly overestimate their personal intelligence for fairly obvious reasons)

"Protected class" is a bit of a tell, my dude.

I'm all for taxing the rich.

The rub is that education is mostly paid for through property taxes which is a regressive form of taxation. So you are asking those with less to subsidize those with more; the exact opposite of what I think most on this forum would profess their beliefs to be.

Property taxes are not exactly regressive taxation. The only people paying them are people who own property. Most poor people don't own property. Hope that helps.

This is dogma.

Paying teachers more is unquestionably a good thing ergo one cannot be against it.

Ok bro.

State and local taxes (that make up like 93% of education budgets) are highly regressive.

Don't take my word for it.

Lol.

Didn't you call me uneducated itt?

Oh the ironing.

That isn't what I said. I said supporting better public education is something we should all be for. Which is the truth. Teacher pay is only part of the issue in places like Oklahoma. The students don't have books or basic school supplies in many schools here. Funding has been cut to the point where schools don't have anything but the bare minimum of class offerings etc.

Good try bro.

Another anecdote: My ex gf/2nd grade teacher in FL averaged around $3k/year out of her pocket on supplies.

Your link talks about why local taxes (like sales tax, cig tax, etc) are regressive which is obvious. It doesn't say property tax is regressive it says property tax burdens fall on the middle class. Do you even read your own links? Tax that doesn't impact the poor (much)I would argue is not regressive.

Again you seem horribly uneducated. Either you are very young or an idiot, or both.

I will accept this at face value, but your earlier comments do not square, and serve to inflame the discussion when you say things like:

"I'd say teachers have it pretty good."
Teachers are "a protected classes [whose] fortunes are further raised mostly on the backs of the downtrodden."
"There is no getting around the fact that teachers work drastically less hours for approximately equal nominal pay, an order of magnitude better pension benefits, and much better job security."

I would suggest walking back those comments, and if not, then realize that the criticism leveled your way is wholly justified.


Regardless of the above, many people do indeed believe that teachers are paid poorly compared to the value of the profession.

So is your overall point that teachers are paid just fine?

As a general example, should we as a society value the education of children, less than "healthcare, finance, management, sciences, or legal" fields, and should teachers be paid less than those professions?

As a specific example - teachers who are paid $40k in OK, with many of them (~half!) being paid less - are they being paid just fine?