Why are teachers paid so poorly in the USA? (Page 3)

The difference is that for the most part, the teachers are stuck with the kids (and vice versa).  If my patients (or your clients/customers/consumers) don't like how you do your business, they find someone else. 

Part of my job involves school consultations.  I often bring medical students or residents with me.  They are generally impressed with the dedication and concern most school teachers (and guidance counsellors, psychologists, and other support teachers) bring to the job, especially when the child in question has serious behavioral problems (hence the consult) and at times unresponsive parents.  And unless it is a truly egregious problem of parenting that would require a CYS/DCFS referral, or a situation that allows expulsion, there is no leverage the school has to deal with the problem. 

I don't think that the salaried jobs in the private sector you are referencing have been the war cry of every American election in the past 50+ years nor is it a top 3 listed priority of every American.

Our country and our financial system is based on and will always ONLY reward greed.  Since there is no profit to be turned in public education, it was and always will be a joke.

yikes.  I wish I could choose to not grade papers, alas, I would be fired, since we required to give x amount of grades per marking period, and required to do x amount of tests as well.  You can also get fired or laid off as a teacher, esp with the amount of budget cuts happening.

Politicians talk about merit raises for good teachers, but how can you measure that? how can you measure if you are improving? you can't compare classes from year to year.  at my public school I had kids by the time in fourth grade that had been in 5 different schools, or, students that just came to the United States a month prior.  Plus the special ed kids and other ESOL students or other ones that come in in the middle of the year.  Guess what the average reading level of my class was coming in to fourth grade? Low third grade level.  That is what got handed to me.  In a better part of the county, the students walk in with a mid-fourth grade b/c they are in an area with dual-income, highly educated families.

If someone could quantitively and fairly figure out what makes a good teacher, I'm for it.

Right now, I know what makes me a good teacher.  The parents of former students or the former students themselves telling me.  To me, that is simply the best feedback I can get, since they are my "clients".

Oh yeah, I also forgot the other reason. Removing the public education/union monopoly will help in getting better pay to better teachers. 

It will also help in providing opportunity for good education to all children regardless on income or where they live.

I don't know how parental involvement is going to allow me to quit the part-time job I work because I cannot make ends meet as a single parent on 37K doing a job that America calls its "biggest priority".

How do you measure a starting point and end point for content material.  For example, if the kid has never taken US History, he will have zero baseline and ANYTHING he retains will look good for the teacher.

Besides, teaching is a two way street.  I don't care how good a teacher one is, if the kid either 1) doesn't want to learn or 2) is physicologically incapable of learning then the teacher is screwed.  Liken it to a world class chef.  No matter how good he cooks, he can't force anyone to eat that doesn't want to.

I think your police example actually does not prove your point.  Both of these are jobs with TERRIBLE "side benefits" - police get to be shot at and teachers have to deal with some truly horrible kids and parents.  I haven't been shot at (unless you count paintball), but I work with kids on a regular basis.  And my year working as a girl scout troop leader convinced me that I could not be a teacher since you can't tell the parents that their little sweetheart has serious problems and needs to be on meds.  I can't even imagine spending 6 hours a day having been burned out with a couple of hours and a weekend each month.

The real issue isn't how much teachers are paid, folks.

Its how seriously parents take the educational process. Now, I have to be careful how I phrase this here, because I don't want to be accused of being racist, or bigoted - but generally, in the areas where household income is low or poverty level compared to the rest of the metro area, children from those families/households don't do well in school, because the expectations are already low, and the schools (unfortunately) function as a form of day-care, or given the violence and disruption that are routinely reported, as a zoo of bad human behavior.

Now, not ALL poor area schools are like this, but I think when politicians are referring to 'improving education' its these schools that they're talking about - not Suburban High where the biggest problems are kids coming to school drunk or high and STILL getting upper percentile schools on their college entrance exams.

We've poured a ton of money at the problem of the poor and the problem of substandard schools and it seems that all we've done is keep the lid on a bubbling pot. I don't necessarily offer any solutions in my opinion here, but I think the continual  handouts of one type of another end up fostering dependence, and knowing you'll get your handout regardless of whether you improve yourself or even work when school is over... that is not a good thing. I see tons of this behavior here in California because we've got a large population of welfare recipients and where there's a lot of Section 8 housing, there's poor schools and a lot of drug activity. Its not limited to any one single ethnic group, either.

The bottom line is, our society is affluent enough that the upper classes can send their children to private schools, and most middle class people, while they might struggle with house payments and keeping their heads above water, can move to a school district that is a relatively safe and nuturing environment for their children.

No one wants to deal with the underclass, they simply wish they'd go away, and we placate them with handouts which creates further generational dependency on the handouts.

Now to the opinion offering stage - I think we need to provide some incentive beyond the 'welfare reform' that was enacted last decade to get people off of their butts, quit playing victims (although there are some folks that are genuinely in a horrible situation), and make them accept some responsibility for the course of their lives. Safety nets are fine, but a nanny state - as Thatcher said, Socialism is great until you run out of somebody else's money.

Incentives would include if you're not in school, and its not related to a serious chronic health condition, well, you lose your Section 8, you lose your welfare. We also should require some adherrence to academic standards - if you can't pass the basic 3Rs by the time you're 16, that's fine, but you'll go immediately into either military service or national service (rebuilding levees, for example) for a 10 year period. If you break this contract, an automatic no parole 20 year prison sentence once you're caught, and upon release, another 10 year stint in perhaps scrubbing toilets in Grand Central Station.

This should apply to *everyone* - not just the poor. Because there are affluent kids from good homes that are screwoffs for whatever reason as well.

Finally, there's a lot of drug activity tied to poor neighborhoods (and rich ones as well) that's a major problem in our society with so many users in jail... but fixing that problem (which would also positively impact the quality of our educational system, IMHO) is a completely different thread and I think my rather personal harsh views on drug use would probably ultimately end up getting said theoretical therad yanked.

In affluent areas, I agree. But its going to be very difficult for charter schools to succeed in poor neighborhoods because the backgrounds many of the children come from aren't ones that engender success. Now, if we could take children from poor neighborhoods and BOARD them in a safe environment where they would have a shot at learning - I think that's an option worth entertaining. But when you are trying to go a school an area that's ridden with crime, drugs, gangs and drive-by shootings, I don't think who well paid the teachers are or whether its a charter school is going to make a damn bit of difference - unfortunately - in whether you lift the kids educational performance that much.

Great, so we agree. When you break the monopoly that public education and the unions that control over public education and institute competition, then you not only get better educational outcomes you also get happier educators that are paid fairly according to the market.

How do you measure a starting point and end point for content material.  For example, if the kid has never taken US History, he will have zero baseline and ANYTHING he retains will look good for the teacher.

Besides, teaching is a two way street.  I don't care how good a teacher one is, if the kid either 1) doesn't want to learn or 2) is physicologically incapable of learning then the teacher is screwed.  Liken it to a world class chef.  No matter how good he cooks, he can't force anyone to eat that doesn't want to.

So why do you work with kids (are you a teacher).  I think that actually goes to prove that point.  I don't know if this is really true or the reason ... but for a policeman or a teacher to put up with the crap they do and for so little pay ... it must be because they love that sort of work and not because of the money.