News-Record.com

"The Guilford County Schools job listings note that the starting salary for a middle-school teacher is $30,430. Most young teachers have student loans bigger than that."

Point 1: The schooling monopoly is run for the benefit of the those with the most political clout in Raleigh, veteran teachers. Thus salaries are "back-loaded." That's why you will sometimes see starting salaries published in newspapers, because these salaries are kept very low. This is just good PR. Publishing the starting salaries gives the public the impression that teacher salaries are low across the board.

What you will never see a newspaper publish is the full salary schedule, because that way the public would know what is actually going on.

Point 2: Tenure, permanent lifetime job security --- something not available with ANY job in the private sector --- is of very high dollar value, a value that is not included in total salary.

Point 3: Benefits tend to be much better in the government sector than in the private sector --- again because of the political clout of the schooling monopoly in state capitols.

Point 4: Even when average salaries are published in comparison, say, with the national average, there will almost certainly be no adjustment for the much lower cost of living in the Southeast than, say, in the Northeast.

"A teacher with a Master’s degree and/or many years of experience can command a larger salary but not as much as a skilled professional at the peak of his or her career in another line of work... and we should reward them better."

It's true in some cases, and apparently a fun comparison since it comes up so much, but it's a flawed one. Part of the teacher "reward" is a handsome retirement plan (including medical benefits) separate from any other state employee's, something not found by or promised to most of us "skilled professionals."

http://www.nctreasurer.com/dsthome/RetirementSystems/Benefits_Handbook.htm

That's where a lot of our higher pay comes in. We "skilled professionals" are expected to plan for our own retirement, and use our own money to do it.

Another part of the "reward" is no fear of job loss. There are fine examples all around us of people getting sacked and companies tightening their belts because the economy is faltering. How many teachers are worried about being let go because of lack of funds? Heck, we're at the edge of another Depression and the LTE writer is talking about higher pay.

And, for that matter, how many schools aren't increasing their budgets? Government is the only entity that sees fit to expand when money gets tight.

Life is all about trade-offs. Trading a higher salary for a good salary (heck, rich to some) and lifelong employment security and hefty retirement benefits isn't a bad choice, so please stop continually telling the rest of us how rough your life is.

Teachers just received an 8% increase when a lot of private sector employees are receiving lay-off notices.

Money won't fix education, increased parental involvement and everyone else involved taking responsibility for teaching will.

We spend more per student that any where else in the nation and still are ranked among the lowest education systems.

Point 4: I should mention that another politically astute reason our schooling monopolies keep starting salaries low is that thus encourages high turnover, which can be used by the monopoly and the news media to make a case to the gullible public for across-the-board pay raises.

Point 5: A Duke public policy researchers, Jacob Vigdor, makes a strong case for paying young teachers more and older teacher less. See "Scrap the Sacrosanct Salary Schedule," Education Next, Fall, 2008:
http://www.hoover.org/publications/ednext/27100089.html

No time to read? Look at two graphs.

Bless your heart, Roberta. You are to be admired for hanging in there. I notice that most "experts" on education are not educators.

Point well taken, Carol.

Civil rights, defense, disabilities, economy, education, education, energy and environment, ethics, faith, family, fiscal, foreign policy, healthcare, homeland security, immigration, Iraq, poverty, rural, service, seniors and social security, technology, taxes, urban policies, veterans, women, arts, child advocacy, Katrina, science, sportsmen, transportation...

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/additional/

No problem embracing an authentic non-______ "expert" on any of those things, though.

Bless all our hearts, right?

Any President can't be an expert on everything. That is why they have a Cabinet and advisers. Bush' main problems were his choices in this area. And when the Colin Powells disagreed they were discounted and left the flock. But as we all say, he is not running for President. I just fear the McCain has sold his soul for a shot at the Presidency...

Cal Buckley wrote a very good article on the new McCain.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-14/sorry-dad-i-was-fired/

I always enjoy the multiple posts on unrelated threads. And now back on topic:

I have to call nonsense on your Cabinet and advisers phrase. Who is Obama's "Sportsmen Adviser"? No one. Consider that he's got an opinion about an issue and no personal experience as a hunter or with self-defense (personal Secret Service bodyguards don't count). So your remark about us taxpayers voicing reasoned decisions on education should apply exactly the same to him. Maybe a little bit more since we posters at least attended public schools. Right?

And his advisers are, ahem, "an eclectic mix of longtime friends who are devoted to him, Chicago pals from his years in Illinois who have strong liberal backgrounds...(and Clinton folks)".

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/campaign-2008/2008/09/08/for-his-campaign-obama-has-assembled-an-eclectic-brain-trust.html

And advisers or not, he, the non-_____ "expert" President, has the final say. Based on nothing but an opinion.