Shouldn't a teacher get paid more then

[waloshin]

At my school their is a young female teacher. She has started teaching about 3 years ago and teachers:

Art
Mechanics
Welding
Auto Body

And possibly more.

Don't you think a teacher of that talent should get paid more then a teacher that just teachers say Biology?

 

[Dmac77]

Oh I smell the PRSI forum coming for this...

Anyways, I really don't think that she should, as you said, she's only been teaching for three years.

Don

 

[TuffLuffJimmy]

I had a computer teacher who taught a computer hardware class and a visual basic class in the same period. I think HE should have been paid more. I don't think just because a teacher knows how to teach more than one class (especially simple classes like art and autobody) they should be paid more.

 

[miles01110]

Mechanics, welding, and auto body are not what I would call "talent" fields. You can teach plenty of people to weld or fix something. Art is different, but it's generally not regarded as being an essential subject (for better or for worse) because these days it's extremely hard to do "art" as a career.

Also, becoming a biology teacher requires more schooling than it does to become an art teacher. An artist can be born with the innate knowledge of how to do their thing- not really the same with biology.

 

[Dmac77]

Also, it depends on wether or not they are a good teacher. I've had great teachers who make ***** (under $40,000) and horrible teachers that make a *****load (+$100,000) I remember reading an article about my school district, where the reporter filed a FOIA request and got the salaries of all the teachers in our district. There was one teacher (who I had last year) who got paid $130,000/year because he taught two classes and supervised five clubs. This guy totally sucked as a teacher, but he got paid $15,000 extra for each club he supervised (ie sat in the meetings and read his newspaper).

Teachers should get paid based on the performance of their class, not based on how many classes they teach, etc.

Don

 

[Abstract]

Yes, a teacher who is capable of teaching more classes, and does, should be paid more. That doesn't mean she/he can be a bad teacher and get paid more though.

 

[waloshin]

Also, it depends on wether or not they are a good teacher. I've had great teachers who make ***** (under $40,000) and horrible teachers that make a *****load (+$100,000) I remember reading an article about my school district, where the reporter filed a FOIA request and got the salaries of all the teachers in our district. There was one teacher (who I had last year) who got paid $130,000/year because he taught two classes and supervised five clubs. This guy totally sucked as a teacher, but he got paid $15,000 extra for each club he supervised (ie sat in the meetings and read his newspaper).

Teachers should get paid based on the performance of their class, not based on how many classes they teach, etc.

Don

She is an amazing teacher and she teaches very well.

 

[djellison]

I'm sorry to say that no, she shouldn't. I'd say she should be paid about the same.

 

[Designer Dale]

Hi.

I taught elementary school for 22 years and all of us at the lower grade levels were a jack of all trades. We did what we did because we chose to and loved it. All good teachers do and the money part is always secondary. I've seen teachers leave education because they couldn't support their families on the salary, but that was well over 30 years ago.

I started at $12,000 with a masters degree in 1978 and left to take up design classes in 2001. My highest salary was $55,000.

I believe teachers are fairly compensated today. There are very bright minds that don't stick around and earn quite a bit more in the business world, but the ones who do stay usually do it more for love that money. It's like art. You don't get rich until you die.

The only thing I don't like is the way the coaches are able to pad their salaries by $20,000 with a few hours of extra effort and time.

And don't get me going on college coaches. Over a million bucks a year to coach college football???

Edit: The teacher who is handling several subjects well is no more or less important than a specialist like a math or language teacher. All are important pieces to the puzzle and should be compensated equally.

Dale

 

[LethalWolfe]

Don't you think a teacher of that talent should get paid more then a teacher that just teachers say Biology?

Have both teachers been teaching the same amount of time? Are there a shortage of science teachers in your area? Has your school had to do budget cuts recently? Art, gym, music, vocational classes, etc., are seen as more expendable than a hard science class so there just might not be any money in the budget to pay her more (at least she has a job).

Mechanics, welding, and auto body are not what I would call "talent" fields. You can teach plenty of people to weld or fix something.

I have to strongly disagree w/that.

Teachers should get paid based on the performance of their class, not based on how many classes they teach, etc.

Don

The problem w/that is then the students basically spend the entire time memorizing answers to the standardized tests and are not taught to think critically or problem solve.

Hi.
And don't get me going on college coaches. Over a million bucks a year to coach college football???

If they can produce a team that will generate millions of dollars annually for the school...


Lethal

 

[rhsgolfer33]

And don't get me going on college coaches. Over a million bucks a year to coach college football???

Well that is because some college football programs are a source of revenue for the school. An exceptional program is also an attraction to some non-athlete students and helps to create an easily marketable brand (think USC, OSU, or Notre Dame).

I remember in high school we had a budget problem and the district was thinking about cutting every sport except for football, because football easily paid for itself.

I could never be a teacher. Though the benefits are pretty good, the pay is way to low. I'd much rather stick it out for a few more years of education to become a college professor where the pay is more acceptable (even high in Accounting and Finance) and the benefits are just as good.

I have to strongly disagree w/that.

Me too. I only wish I could weld. Man is that tough. The pay is pretty good if you're skilled at it too. I know trained welders that make more than some of the accountants I know. Granted, welding is a hell of a lot more physical and sometimes dangerous, but its also pretty cool.

 

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Well that is because some college football programs are a source of revenue for the school. An exceptional program is also an attraction to some non-athlete students and helps to create an easily marketable brand (think USC, OSU, or Notre Dame).

hey that's where I'm going to school! Maybe I'll even try out for the team if I learn how to play over the summer...

 

[Iscariot]

Maybe when she teaches you the distinction between then and than

 

[Dmac77]

...

The problem w/that is then the students basically spend the entire time memorizing answers to the standardized tests and are not taught to think critically or problem solve.

Lethal

If a teacher is able to teach his/her students to think critically and to be problem solvers, they should be able to preform well on tests. I've had many teachers who taught me to think critically, and that did everything in their power to prevent me and other students from becoming mindless multiple choice zombies, and I still did/do well on tests.

Don

 

[annk]

...

Also, becoming a biology teacher requires more schooling than it does to become an art teacher. An artist can be born with the innate knowledge of how to do their thing- not really the same with biology.

Someone can be born with the potential to develop a creative talent, but the different disciplines in the visual arts are comprised of various techniques that need to be learned. Of course it's possible for people to develop new techniques, but there's still a technical tradition to be learned. That's why universities have art departments that offer degrees.

Not to mention the fact that a knowledge of art history is an essential part of the education of any artist. Artists - or those who teach art - require schooling just as a teacher in any other discipline. They're not born with an innate knowledge of their craft.

 

[iBlue]

I don't think the class subjects themselves should be categorized as being more valuable than another. I.e., All things being equal (such as length of tenure) a Biology teacher shouldn't make more or less money than a History teacher, etc. However, a teacher that teaches more than one class could be (and probably is) doing more work and should be paid more for that.

 

[davidjearly]

No, all teachers should be paid the same based on their position (Class teacher, Head teacher ect..) and on the hours that they work.

That being said, it would be great if there were actually any teaching vacancies in this country right now.

 

[miles01110]

Not to mention the fact that a knowledge of art history is an essential part of the education of any artist. Artists - or those who teach art - require schooling just as a teacher in any other discipline. They're not born with an innate knowledge of their craft.

Since art is all about manipulating people's expectations in a certain way with respect to an established form, you're right in that knowledge of those established forms needs to be a starting point of sorts. But knowing how to do that in a way that appeals to people is not something you can read a book and master.

The point I was getting at is that good artists don't need schooling in order to do their craft. You can't sit at home and study/do biology academically like you can with art.

I have to strongly disagree w/that.

Ok. We can program a machine to weld, which is accepted as being equivalent if not better than the job a human could do. There's no abstract abilities involved, and a finite number of ways to achieve the desired result of a secure joint. Since I don't know exactly what "Mechanics" and "Auto Body" mean in context, I won't comment on those, but there's probably a similar argument. You can't say the same for any type of art, really.

 

[annk]

...

The point I was getting at is that good artists don't need schooling in order to do their craft....
...

Oh, but they do. Any art form is a combination of schooling and natural ability. Without natural ability, you won't be able to bring anything interesting or creative to the table. Without schooling, which involves mastery of technique (which brings with it the springboard for experimentation), mastery of the tools of the craft, a knowledge of the art form's history, and - in music, for example, training in creating with or reinterpreting others - natural ability will only take you so far. Often, people with lots of natural ability but no training end up being excellent amateurs. Art in some form fills their free time in a very meaningful way, and that's a fantastic thing.

I worked as a professional orchestra musician for 12 years, and I know that being able to make it as a creative professional in a highly competitive market wouldn't have been possible without the grounding I got in my education (years of private lessons as well as a bachelor and masters in music). But of course - I wouldn't have gotten into the college programs in music without natural ability, either.

So the point I'm making is that like everything else you can do with your life, you need a combination of talent and training to really excel. The arts are no exception. I think it's important not to underestimate the importance of training as a means to realising the full potential of ability.

 

[dejo]

Maybe when she teaches you the distinction between then and than

As well as "their" vs. "there" and "teachers" vs. "teaches".

 

[Plymouthbreezer]

Someone can be born with the potential to develop a creative talent, but the different disciplines in the visual arts are comprised of various techniques that need to be learned. Of course it's possible for people to develop new techniques, but there's still a technical tradition to be learned. That's why universities have art departments that offer degrees.

Not to mention the fact that a knowledge of art history is an essential part of the education of any artist. Artists - or those who teach art - require schooling just as a teacher in any other discipline. They're not born with an innate knowledge of their craft.

Amen.

Art school is hard work - just as "hard" a biology or any science schooling would be. The pressure to be creative at such a high level, continuously, is immensely difficult. Originality and creation require thought and insight; careful use of prudence, balanced with risk taking ability... This is something that takes years of practice, and schooling, to perfect.

 

[Buschmaster]

I suppose I'm in the camp that teachers should be paid enough to live comfortably and not much more.

It's not that I don't see them as an incredibly important asset to the society, because they are. They are up there with doctors and farmers, probably even more so.

But let's suppose teachers made 100k a year. A pretty fair salary for sure, but what kind of people would be teachers then? Honestly, I probably would have been a teacher, and would have been a good teacher, or at least hold my own. But to be honest, I'd be doing it because I would kinda like it and it makes a lot of money. People should be teachers because that's what they want to do beyond pay. They're so crucial to a young person's development that I just feel like we should keep them exactly how they are. And most of my teachers were amazing and loved what they did.

 

[Surely]

Maybe when she teaches you the distinction between then and than

I think that Toronto creates smartasses.

I was going to post exactly the same thing.

Maybe it's the water...... or the school system......

 

[nyte3k]

I agree with a previous poster. It just depends how well the teacher teaches. Whether they are teaching welding, biology, or farming, there are people out there who need those services, and if we didn't have one or the other, it would create its problems.

I do believe overall, that most teachers should get paid more than they are. Especially in some schools where teachers must be both the parent and the teacher.

 

[Capt Crunch]

I think teachers should be paid $100k and there should be no teacher tenure.

There are tons of academics like me that don't end up in academia but still like to teach. I could waste my future PhD and make $40k a year... or I could make 10x that amount in industry.

If they paid $100k for teachers I would be a teacher, no question about it. I think there are a lot of people like me.