« More floorplan pr0n | Main | Happy 10th birthday »
August 25, 2006
Those poor teachers, only making $70K/yr
My school-teacher mother won't like this, but one of the most persistant myths in America is that public school teachers are underpaid. It's almost as persistant as the myth that teachers' unions care about kids. Really, they're the same myth.
When they're being honest and think nobody's listening, teachers' union leaders will admit that they exist as collective bargaining units whose goal is the same as any other union: to maximize wages, minimize working hours, and make working conditions such that those who don't wish to work don't have to. (OK, maybe not in these words.) Hence their opposition to merit pay, where good teachers would make more. Hence the tenure system, which makes it impossible to fire bad teachers. In New York, even teachers accused of inappropriate sexual advances on students remain in the system for years because "their due process rights have to be respected," according to union officials.
Last year I attended a back-to-back lecture by two old women. One was a rather haughty buzzard, trailed around by a clumsy lackey who took her picture from every possible angle as she spoke. She was the head of the CSA, the principals' union in New York. She discussed how important the union is because it "protects principals' due process rights" and how Bloomberg's wildly successful reforms have "created an unbearable, hostile work environment for principals." She went on and on about how the principals' job is so tough, largely because of Gates-backed reforms, low pay (many make 6 figures), and new demands for accountability. She went on to describe how the New York Schools Chancellor wants her out, how they think she's an old relic, a dinosaur.
One person asked if the union feels any need to help weed-out bad principals. "No, if they hire a bad principal, that's their fault. It's our job to ensure that their due process rights are respected."
Another asked if the union helps train principals. "No."
One of my friends was growing increasingly frustrated. Her degree is in Education, and she asked, "So what does the principals' union do?"
The reply: "Our job is to bargain collectively on behalf of our members and ensure that their due process rights are respected by management."
Friend: "So you don't train principals, you protect bad principals, and you don't see any responsibility to help reform the system? Why haven't you said anything about your duty to help improve childrens' educations?"
Touche. (She felt bad for saying this, but I wanted to get up and cheer.)
After the old principals union buzzard left, another elderly woman stood up. She wore tastefully stylish clothes for a 70-something woman and looked a bit like Betty White, without that ditzy Golden Girls air. The union boss hadn't noticed her, or at least didn't recognize her. She looked every bit the distinguished lady, but she was clearly straining to hold in her frustration. Whenever a grandmotherly woman starts out by saying, "Let me tell you something," you know you're in for a ride. If anyone had any doubt that the principals union boss was exactly as Chancellor Klein might describe her, this septigenarian removed all doubt.
Before us was an old retired executive who spends her time and leverages her network to pair inner-city principals with business leaders. No lackey, no photos for the newsletter, certainly no six-figure salary. She's fabulously wealthy and doesn't have to spend her retirement in crumbling New York public schools. She proceeded to tell us how her organization pairs-up principals and executives and the things that had been learned along the way about small ways to make schools better.
It became abundantly clear who was part of the problem and who was part of the solution. When an educational union boss gives a lecture that mentioned almost nothing of improving kids' lives, and lots of things that detract from a good education (like protecting bad principals), and when a union boss sees her raison d'etre as "collective bargaining," unions can't be part of the solution.
So are teachers underpaid? They get a government salary paid by taxpayers, work 9 months a year, have 2 weeks at Christmas and a week in spring, have jobs for life (tenure), can't be fired if they do a half-assed job, and need only minimal college qualifications. But having all that, it's easy to demand so much more.
Teachers in Gary have recently decided to walk off the job, leaving the classrooms empty for poor kids who need teachers most. Their demands? Nothing that would improve education (smaller class sizes don't count). The sticking point is pay. Indeed, programming and building improvements are being cut to pay teachers more:
“Certainly all schools are experiencing challenges with their budgets and Gary is no different,” said [Superintendent] Mary Steele. “And we have offered them more than what we had available for teacher raises. So we’ve made some sacrifices even with some additional programming and renovations that we had set money aside to ensure that we put on the table that that we’ve put on already.” [source]
So how much does a Gary teacher make? $52,433, and a 3.5% increase over two years is "insulting," says one union member.
Given that teachers only work 9 months a year, $52K is the equivalent of $70K annually, plus gold-plated benefits. Underpaid? Whatever it is, it's not enough; it'll never be enough, they'll always be "underpaid." And this is why teachers unions are detrimental to public education.
Posted by adrianjo at August 25, 2006 08:49 PM