Some who read my blog may know that I made a career change to teaching a few years ago. I will be the first to admit that I am not an expert in the state of education in America. In fact, I’m not even a full-time teacher, yet. I was not able to gain a regular teaching assignment this school year, so I have been a substitute teacher, instead. Fortunately, I must be fairly well regarded in that capacity, because I am called nearly every day for a subbing assignment. Even though I’m only a substitute teacher right now, I believe my experiences during the past year or two provide me with a perspective I did not possess prior to switching careers. For what it’s worth, I will share a bit of that perspective with you.
When I consider the state of education, there are two areas that seem to dominate. Both are related. The most obvious issue with education, at least for me, concerns teacher compensation. The second issue is the proliferation of private schools, and the impact these schools have on the public schools. First, the obvious:
Educators are underpaid.
I know, I know, everyone is underpaid these days, and when the primary goal of those running the government is to cut expenses, where is the money for high salaries going to come from? Even so, the starting salary for most teachers in my district is less than $30,000. With a master degree, you may start around $33,000. After 30 years in the field, a teacher can make about $70,000, but only if he or she has managed to add new academic degrees to the resume. The cost of those degrees will come out of the teacher’s own pocket. When I worked in private industry, the company I worked for paid for any new educational expenses necessary for my job. Not so for educators. What’s more, an MBA or attorney has much greater earning potential late in his career than a teacher. How many MBA salaries are capped at $70,000?
In order to receive a teacher’s certificate, a teacher-in-training spends one semester as a student teacher. During this time, the student teacher assumes full responsibility for the classroom, including lesson planning, lesson delivery, and grading. The student teacher is not paid during this period. In fact, he must pay full tuition to his sponsoring college for the student teaching semester. Compare that to private industry. When I was first employed by a large Fortune 500 company many years ago, I spent six weeks in training, during which time I received full salary.
I could go on, but I don’t want to sound like a whiner. Americans need to understand, however, that in order to attract and retain the very best people to educate our children, we need to compensate them accordingly, and regard them with the same level of prestige that educators receive in most other parts of the world.
Public schools can’t compete with private schools.
Yesterday I was a substitute teacher at one of my city’s private schools. I engaged in conversation with several of the teachers and asked one of them how many of the school’s students receive special education services. The answer: about 1 or 2 percent. This school has 450 students, and there is one special education instructor.
A private school can be selective about who it will accept into its student body. Not so the public schools. Every public school in which I have worked, and I’ve worked in a lot of them, is full of students needing special education services. As many as 25%, and probably even more, of public school students in my city have been diagnosed with various conditions requiring special education, including ADHD, physical disabilities, emotional/behavioral problems, and serious cognitive disabilities. By law, these students are entitled to a mainstream education with their peers who are not similarly disabled. While the motivation behind mainstreaming is commendable, in practice it can be damaging, I think. When a lot of students in a classroom have special needs, the performance of those who don’t is pulled down. When those special needs include serious emotional/behavioral problems, the negative impact is exacerbated. A private school would simply expel many of those students, or quickly flunk them out.
These special education services entail a huge expense for the public schools. As a result, the tax revenue available for computers and physical plant are sorely lacking.
One might reasonably assume that private schools face similar financial problems, especially in these tough economic times. While it’s true that private school tuition can be a real sacrifice, and some private schools have lower enrollment now than they did during the heady days of the 1990’s, the problems facing public schools have overshadowed those of the private schools. Many parents are willing to make the financial sacrifice for their children’s benefit. In my city, at least, private school attendance has actually increased over the past several years, despite the difficult economic conditions.
Here’s an interesting statistic: roughly 75% of the students in public schools in my city receive food assistance – free breakfast and lunch. That means 75% of students in these schools live at or near poverty level. The city’s middle class has left public schools. Of course, the situation is different in the suburban schools. Their demographics are not terribly different than those of the private schools. But it is sad to see the state of schools located in the heart of the metropolitan area. I don’t think my small city differs greatly from cities across the nation, either.
Is teaching worth it?
Teaching is not an easy profession. It is not well compensated. It is not recession-proof, either. I was not successful in obtaining a full-time position for this school year. When the largest school district in the area is reducing its payroll, there aren’t many schools willing to hire someone like me with so little experience. I’m willing to gain as much experience as I can by substitute teaching. Fortunately, I can sub pretty much any time I want to – I am on the substitute list for every school district and nearly every private school within a 15 or 20 miles radius. Hopefully, subbing will give me the experience and exposure to ensure an eventual full-time position. Many of my substitute teaching experiences have been quite pleasant and rewarding. Some have been terribly discouraging and sad. Fortunately, the good experiences outweigh the bad ones. I’ll continue to be a substitute teacher until I can become a full-timer, or until I grow weary of poverty-level wages. For now, at least, it’s worth it.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Travelight32
PoliticallyIncorrectDonna
Just Thinking...
Jeanette DeMain
LadyMiko
Reflecting On History
Salon.com
Comments
I remember that some of my teachers in high school used to sell real estate and be involved in similar types of work during the summer months they had off. Clearly they could use the extra money, even back then when the standard of living was better.
The tenured teachers have the type of uninterrupted employment that is really quite rare in the rest of the nation with the exception of owners of companies who typically don't fire themselves.
I also beleive that our system of education is totally obsolete - so much so that I believe it should be totally reconfigured to suit the needs of the people - all the people. Not just teachers and parents, but also the needs of teachable public of all ages.
What is learned should be up to the student, not the state or those who have feel they need to shape our minds. Who is a student should also be chosen by the individual. People who do not want to be in school should not. It is not the governments business. Our wealth should not be squanderd to perpetuate the staus quo, as their vision has created only the machinery to do so.
John, I'm certain teachers are better compensated in the affluent towns of the Hudson Valley than other communities, but still, I'll bet their compensation is less than that of other professionals with similar level of education.
Snowdon, you bring up interesting points. The basics of the three R's are still as important as ever, I think, but there may be better ways to learn them. And learning is certainly a lifetime endeavor, no question. As to your last point, I do think all children need to go to school for the basics. Once they reach high school, however, their needs are divergent enough that a "one size fits all" approach is condemning some to an irrelevant education that will not help them at all as adults. I don't know why we don't institute trade schools to teach auto mechanics, machining skills, and the like. Does every adolescent really need geometry and algebra and biology? In the social studies arena, they have all had basic American and world history by 9th grade; how much more do they really need? Just make sure they take government by the time they have their 18th birthday, and have a basic understanding of history, with the option to take more of it if they want.
What would be the difference between substituting and working as full-time teacher, if you were called every day? I suppose certain employment benefits, such as health insurance and retirement plan? From what I'm observing many Canadian universities and high schools are reluctant to engage educators on full time contracts preferring to pay younger teachers on a lower salary scale, if at all possible.
On a different note, you may be interested to read an excellent post related to education by Paul Fornale on Open Salon. I'll pm the link.
With best wishes.
♥R
neilpaul, astutely stated.
Torman, glad to hear the "happier" part of your brother's experience.
I have kids in middle school. Every day, I have to fight a growing feeling of impotent rage. My children's school district, like every other one in the country, is dying by a thousand cuts. Every year when we think things couldn't possibly get worse, they do. Class sizes rise, electives are cut, this year they cut the PE/Health teachers at my son's school, and all the regular teachers are taking a class of PE. So my son is taking PE from his (wonderful fabulous gifted) math teacher. How is that a good use of anyone's time?
In my local paper, I just read about a local high school with 80% free/reduced lunch, where 10+% of the kids are homeless. They're couch-surfing, living in cars and church basements. The homeless student coordinator says her biggest need is for shoes. Food pantries and clothes closets don't have shoes. Shoes, in 2011 America (not 1931).
Thank you for what you do. I've got your back. Would you like to buy an Entertainment Book? Donate to a jog-a-thon? How about a box of apples or some wrapping paper? I've got it all.
I volunteer, I fundraise, I make sure my kids have every extra we can afford. But what about the kids who can't go to science camp/music lessons/enrichment du jour that I can afford? I worry about the woefully under-educated next generation.
It's similar to the cliches spouted on valuing veterans and then not supplying them with body armor at the front or medical care back home.
The root issue is the value placed on teachers. It isn't there. If it was, the pay would be there. The real question isn't "Why aren't teachers paid more?"
The real question is "Why are teachers valued so little?"
Congratulations on making such an important commitment.
I support more pay and respect for teachers at all levels--but not without fundamental reform in ed-school curricula.
Yes, teachers overseas are paid more and get more respect. But their requirements are much more rigorous. To become a French primary-school teacher, for example, you need rigorous graduate study in the field you will teach (not just "educational methods") and original research on a level some Ph.D students here (never mind ed students) could not match. Many flunk out overseas, unlike American graduate education departments schools, where groupthink, nannyism, political correctness and team spirit trump academic rigor (routinely derided as "elitist") every time.
Education-school courses are heavy on fluff, mindless busy-work, ideology, nannyism and attitude-adjustment, and light on academic rigor and knowledge of one's subject matter. Read Richard Hofstadter's 1964 Anti-Intellectualism in American Life, which has a chapter on teacher education.
Sadly, it's still relevant.
the fundamental character of america has always been 'devil take the hindmost,' and the consequence is poverty and crime built in to society. with the land filling up and resources falling to the levels of 'old' societies, america will resemble india soon.
get a gig in a private school at your earliest opportunity, this ship doesn't have lifeboats.
One of the reasons I went to college was because I didn't want to have to work in a cannery. I suppose at some point most all college students think about going into teaching; I certainly did. But when I saw pubic school teachers working next to me in the cannery, it made the teaching profession less appealing. Why did I want to have a job that paid so little that I had to work a second job just to make ends meet?
During that time a good friend taught English in a private school. His salary was roughly the same as what the school secretary made. And in addition to teaching classes he was also expected to coach a sport. He eventually had to leave teaching because the pay was so low.
On top of that, it seemed to me that the taxpayers in my state could never figure out if they wanted their children educated. At that time schools were supported by property taxes, and every year voters had to approve the school budget. It always took two or three votes for that, and the retired voters were notoriously unwilling to support the schools. As a college student I had to ask myself if I really wanted to end up in a career that the voters were unwilling to support.
And it's even worse today, with underpaid teachers actually being laid off. In the current economic climate it is a mystery to me why any college student would consider a teaching career. It's one thing to be willing to endure low pay, quite another thing to be incapable of finding employment in the field.
That said, 100 years or so ago when I was contemplating career choices, I got accepted at teachers' college. I didn't go, opting instead for university, which I promptly quit and then went out to work.
I'm glad I did both things, because I'd have been a really horrible teacher by even the minimal standards they had then. I watched as a couple of friends -- who were outstanding -- did, and I watched also as salaries soared.
People complained about the high cost of the education part of their municipal tax levy, but you know what? People like you and my friends deserve every cent they make -- and more. It may be the world's toughest gig to get right.
CG, teachers become glorified babysitters only because parents and administrators allow that to happen. I personally have not seen too much of that, but perhaps that is because my experience is mainly with high school students, where an entirely different set of issues comes to the forefront. In many suburban and private schools, teachers are treated with great respect, but not with great pay.
Johnny Fever, you are correct in that no one is forcing teachers to stay in a profession for which they feel they are underpaid. I think you are very wrong in suggesting they are not overpaid based on hours worked. The teaching duties do not end when the bell rings at 3:00, nor do they begin when it rings at 8:00 or 9:00. Most teachers remain at their schools long after the bell for extracurricular activities and sports, often well into the evening. Virtually every teacher brings a lot of work home. People not in the profession have little knowledge of just how much work it is to grade 12o tests, assignments, term papers, and group projects. Few know how much work goes into planning lessons, obtaining class materials, and creating tests/assignments/powerpoint presentations. Most of that preparation takes place outside of normal school hours, often at home after the kids are asleep, not during the hour of planning time teachers are given during the day.
It is true that most teachers don't have to teach during the summer. That is when many of them are outlining the next year's lessons or attending additional college courses needed to get a pay raise -- courses the teachers pay for out of their own pockets.
If you consider the amount of education a teacher has, including bachelor degrees and usually at least one master degree, and compare that to someone working in a bank or telecom firm with similar education credentials, you will find teachers are compensated far less. And I can tell you absolutely that the teachers work at least as many hours, and almost certainly more, than that banker or IT guy. I know because I have been on both sides of that fence.
As for the benefits, yes, teachers traditionally have had decent pension benefits, but they do not get social security, at least not in my state. Teachers pay into their pension fund, it's not a freebie. Frankly, I think they should eliminate the existing pension plan and be on social security just like most of the rest of society in order to take away the perception that teachers have such superior retirement benefits. They don't when you factor in the lack of social security.
It is also a misperception that teacher health benefits are so much better than everyone else's. When you compare the health benefits teachers get to the benefits of large Fortune 500 corporations, you will find they are comparable. At one time they may have been better (something that I doubt), but that is no longer the case in most districts. If teachers receive an extraordinarily high health benefit, then so do employees at AT&T, GE, Exxon, Ford, Apple, and a host of smaller companies.
The college world ain't any better. I'm an adjunct. So, even though I teach the same number of classes and have the same degree as the guy down the hall, I don't get paid the same amount, and I definitely don't get any health benefits. Healthy adjuncts, who needs 'em right?
I read today that 4.2 million work in "secret services" (News Analysis, "A Closed Mouth Policy Even on Open Secrets" by Scott Shane, page A18)
THAT'S 4.2 MILLION!
Where is the money? Where is sanity? Where is the future? How can there be a question of who to vote for, support in 2012? I don't get it. Tell me what to do?
al, there is a lot of sad truth to what you have written.
mishima, amazing, isn't it, that even with the relatively low wages, teachers are still considered unaffordable. Of course, if we could only take some of the bloat out of the administrations, but that is where the power lies. They don't often lay themselves off. BTW, your comment about teachers being expected to coach is true across the board, not just at the private schools. And that is all done after school, and for very little in the way of extra compensation.
boanerges, I have spoken to a lot of people like you who once contemplated teaching, but decided against, usually because of poor pay. That was my reasoning 30 years ago.
profkeck, the burn out factor among teachers is amazingly high. It may be a good thing that I am entering this profession at this time in my life. By the time I'm burned out, I'll probably be at retirement age!
Ben Sen, I obviously chose the wrong profession for my career change! And I cannot answer your question. I wish I could.
Seamoremonster, I think you are correct on all counts. Why educate, when we can just fall for the jingoistic antics of the powerful elites who arrogantly believe the nation's interests are identical to their own financial interest?
And I love your perspective.
The challenges for American public education are legion, and many have been set as deliberate obstacles by those who would destroy it, but most by those who most want to keep and improve it, but have undermined it anyway. There's No Child Left Behind, with its Lake Wobegon insistence that every child be above average, or else; there's that 25% of identified "special needs" kids you wrote about, many so designated primarily because they can generate extra federal funds for local districts, and for psychiatrists who now are merely glorified pill-pushers, with many tens of thousands unfairly stigmatized (and drugged: another scandal); there's the rage for assessment, which leads to teachers "teaching to the test," but not really teaching, thus leaching most of the satisfaction out of the job; and finally, there is the lack of interest in education by millions of kids and millions of parents. All of these factors create the perception of failure and problems, with continuing potshots at education as we really do fall behind the rest of the world. That ion turn leads to the subsequent underfunding by results-oriented taxpayers, who might be better off demanding better results from Junior.
My brother and sister were once two of the best teachers in America (and I'm not kidding), and they were glad finally to retire and get out of the public schools; they were different places, and not better places, than when they started. Both had less freedom to teach as they learned how, less support for teaching critical thinking, and felt more bureaucratic silliness coming from local, state and federal levels -- and less respect from everybody. They absolutely didn't care about the compensation; they were fine with that part, for they knew what they'd get, going in, and they just wanted to do some good in the world. They just wanted to do their jobs, and hopefully get credit for that, not be blamed for the failure of everything good and hopeful about the American future.
But oh well...
That being said, too many behavioral problems are called special needs but no work is being done with the parents. An underpaid, under-experienced classroom aid gets handed the problem of making problem kid sit still. Bad parenting is not addressed.
My experience is that it is very easy and natural to reward temper tantrums and to ignore good behavior. Plenty of parents don't even notice they are doing this.
Many teachers do receive compensation that is far higher than it appears to them. It's not until someone is over 40 that the superior quality of a Gov't pension plan matters to them. Summers off are only valuable if you can enjoy the leisure time or find a summer job you want to do. The result is perceived pay is low, but actual costs are much higher. Spending money on undervalued benefits is stupid.
Schools may need to pay better to attract the best and, if they want to stay in business, they will find a way to do that by cutting elsewhere.
I know that where I live and teach now, on the whole, people get better education for less and in shoddy physical environments for the most part. It is nice if schools have the latest "stuff" (and I don't mean that in a nasty way), but for the most part it is teachers, not class size, not technical innovations, not new methods, that do the job. I've taught in schools in small towns in Russia where the students come from a type of poverty we've not seen in years in most of the states, go to schools with only one or two working toilets, trudge through piles of snow to get there, have classrooms without enough, or sometimes any, books, and yet in my field all of those students would put American kids to shame in a comparative experience. The difference is the teachers. And, by the way, if they weren't good in the places I taught, they were fired.
Of course little really works if parents don't give a darn. The schools can't do much about that. It is reality. People, however, can encourage parents to care and not give much respect to those who don't, and communities can honour those, both parents and students, who do care and achieve.
Michael Corrigan, don't get me started on the impossible and impractical metrics established by NCLB! I also agree with much of your perception of special needs. I believe far too many kids have been diagnosed with a formal malady, when in reality they are simply rowdy and lack discipline. That's not to say there are legitimate cases of ADHL, too, but perhaps not as many as are claimed.
Malusinka, I did not address bad parenting in this post, but probably should have. You cannot do much to improve an inner city school if the parents are high, drunk, or uncaring. The home is the biggest influence on the success of a school.
Mimetalker, I agree that there has been some improvement in District 205. That district will always lag behind others, though, due to its demographics. Any improvement is good, however.
Barbara Joanne, public schools will never successfully compete with private schools until private schools are required, like the public schools, to accept every student. How can a public school with 25% of its students legally diagnosed as needing special ed services compete with a private school that is not required to accept them? How can a public school compete academically with a private school that will simply expel a failing student? The public schools do not have that option. There may be very good reasons to institute competition in the education system, but it will not be a fair contest, and I think it will speed up the demise of the public school system.
I agree with your other points, that there is a danger of relying too much on "fluff", and that a good education is not dependent on having the latest flashy technology. On the other hand, it is important for kids to have access to the latest technology, since they will need to find employment in a world that is ever more reliant on that technology. It's a double edged sword, I guess.
As for certification, we may be keeping some very good people out of the profession by requiring them to go through a year or more of college to become certified to teach. My classes in education have no doubt helped me be a better teacher. A better way to prepare teachers is surely there, however, perhaps via a mentoring system in which student teaching is enhanced with an ongoing mentor-apprentice relationship for a year or so.
For starters, I used to teach so don’t belittle my viewpoints because you think you come from a place of experience and I don’t. And seeing that you agree; that nobody is forcing teachers to teach, is essentially my point. If compensation fell to a point where schools couldn’t attract capable employees, then schools should raise compensation. This is the way employment works in the private sector. Having said the above, I’ll respond to your points.
“Johnny Fever, you are correct in that no one is forcing teachers to stay in a profession for which they feel they are underpaid. I think you are very wrong in suggesting they are not overpaid based on hours worked. The teaching duties do not end when the bell rings at 3:00, nor do they begin when it rings at 8:00 or 9:00. Most teachers remain at their schools long after the bell for extracurricular activities and sports, often well into the evening. Virtually every teacher brings a lot of work home. People not in the profession have little knowledge of just how much work it is to grade 12o tests, assignments, term papers, and group projects. Few know how much work goes into planning lessons, obtaining class materials, and creating tests/assignments/powerpoint presentations. Most of that preparation takes place outside of normal school hours, often at home after the kids are asleep, not during the hour of planning time teachers are given during the day.”
Name me one profession where the people that work in it think they are overpaid. All salaried workers don’t get paid for overtime and most salaried workers have to work 9 to 5 with only a 3 week vacation. Again, I used to teach and teaching was by far the lesser time commitment.
“It is true that most teachers don't have to teach during the summer. That is when many of them are outlining the next year's lessons or attending additional college courses needed to get a pay raise -- courses the teachers pay for out of their own pockets.”
Nobody compensates private sector employees for their education either and they don’t get the summer off to “plan”. Are you seriously suggesting the summer is spent planning?
“If you consider the amount of education a teacher has, including bachelor degrees and usually at least one master degree, and compare that to someone working in a bank or telecom firm with similar education credentials, you will find teachers are compensated far less. And I can tell you absolutely that the teachers work at least as many hours, and almost certainly more, than that banker or IT guy. I know because I have been on both sides of that fence.”
Comparing compensation and educational credentials of different professions is like comparing apples to oranges. If an IT company over-compensates its employees it will eventually go out of business because it wouldn’t be able to compete with lower cost IT companies. Once again, everyone’s compensation should be the product of the free market.
“As for the benefits, yes, teachers traditionally have had decent pension benefits, but they do not get social security, at least not in my state. Teachers pay into their pension fund, it's not a freebie. Frankly, I think they should eliminate the existing pension plan and be on social security just like most of the rest of society in order to take away the perception that teachers have such superior retirement benefits. They don't when you factor in the lack of social security.”
I would trade my social security for a teacher’s pension in a heartbeat. Furthermore the money teachers contribute towards their pension is only a fraction of the amount of money a typical pension pays out over a lifetime.
“It is also a misperception that teacher health benefits are so much better than everyone else's. When you compare the health benefits teachers get to the benefits of large Fortune 500 corporations, you will find they are comparable. At one time they may have been better (something that I doubt), but that is no longer the case in most districts. If teachers receive an extraordinarily high health benefit, then so do employees at AT&T, GE, Exxon, Ford, Apple, and a host of smaller companies.”
Again, most private sector workers would trade their health benefits for a public employees' health benefits in a heartbeat. The logic of comparing your benefits to that of a Fortune 500 company is ridiculous on so many levels. I’ll make one brief point; taxpayers don’t pay for the benefits of Fortune 500 employees.
By the way - except for the special needs issue - which may need to be addressed completely differently, Catholic schools, for example, do more, better and with less than public schools.
I also doubt that 25 percent of a school district is special needs, although they may be "called" so.
I doubt too that many failing students are tossed easily (and I know that is not what you said exactly) out of private schools. I DO think they can toss badly-behaving students out more easily than can public schools. The answer may be to make it easier for PUBLIC schools to do the same. Give badly-behaved (not badly performing) students a taste of the real world and maybe they will shape up.
But, most of all, let the market determine where and how and by whom individual students are educated and give parents a choice.
And those special needs kids just may actually benefit by having more choices.
It may not be a fully "fair" competition, but it will be a competition and nearly all business and products do better when they are forced to compete. If public schools cannot, maybe they need to be replaced by a variety of private schools, freely chosen by parents and paid for, and probably more cheaply, by funds freed up and given, via vouchers, to parents to make their choices. There may even be more money for special-needs kids to have their needs actually met via such plans.
Frankly, I think the demise of our public school system would probably be a good thing. Choice, freedom to choose, money better spent and an end to forced political feeding would be great. Let people who want their kids to get the "Leftist" agenda find schools that teach same and others choose schools that suit their values and needs. Choice works in so much else in life - including the teachers we choose for our children in sports (very often), language, music, ballet, etc., it can work in history, math, etc.
Barbara:
My observation about school choice in England is that it segregates the kids with parents who care about education from those that don't. The result is, at the schools for students with uncaring parents, they kids get a gold star for showing up. At the other schools, threat of not meeting standards keeps the kids in line.
Bottom line is strong segregation by class. The professional parents send their kids to good schools, the working class parents' kids end up at the slacker schools. This is regardless of the kid's ability or attitude.
Why is it wrong to suggest someone in a profession as important as teaching should not have benefits that are comparable to those provided by large corporations? Is an AT&T employee more entitled to reduced rate health coverage than an employee of a school district?
I respect the fact that you were once a teacher and can therefore speak knowledgably on the subject. I can't help but wonder if compensation might have had something to do with your leaving the field. Perhaps not, but I know many good teachers leave because the low rate of pay does not adequately compensate for the hours spent working at home, or for the difficult conditions they must endure in the classroom.
It simply is not true that nobody compensates for outside education. Large corporations routinely offer tuition assistance for classes that can enhance one's work. I'm not saying school districts should pay for their teachers' additional degree work, but that is something practiced in the private sector.
You also state that you would gladly trade your social security for a teacher pension. Again, that is not a fair comparison for many private sector jobs. Many companies, certainly those with a large number of employees, offer pensions and contribute to 401K retirement plans, which are in addition to the employee's social security. To say that only teachers get a pension or retirement plan from their employers is simply untrue. I worked for several companies in the private sector, and they all provided retirement plans that were in addition to social security.
Your last point about health insurance may be true. I can only state that the companies I worked for offered health plans that were comparable to those of teachers in the districts where I have worked. I believe the days of teachers paying a miniscule amount for health coverage have largely come to an end just as they have for employees of large corporations. If teachers pay a little less, then that's a good thing since they receive a lot less on their paychecks.
I also agree that public schools need more freedom in how they can deal with problem children. The difficulty comes after the problem child has been expelled. What then? We're talking about 11, 12, 13 year olds. Society won't benefit by leaving them on the street. Frankly, I don't know what the answer is. I only know that right now those kids are in public schools by necessity, and they would never last in a private school.
I don't think this is a "Left" or Right" issue. I just think it's obvious that public schools will never be able to compete with private schools until public schools have the same ability to be selective about their students as private schools. I don't see that ever happening, nor do I see a time when there will be no need for public schools available to educate those with the least resources in our society.
“Why is it wrong to suggest someone in a profession as important as teaching should not have benefits that are comparable to those provided by large corporations?”
Several reasons:
1) public schools are doing a crappy job of educating
2) taxpayers are tapped out
3) better job security is worth something
4) retired teacher pensions have consumed the education budget
5) there is an ample supply of qualified candidates to replace the ones that leave
6) teachers don’t work as many hours as a full-time employee
7) teacher benefits are actually better than the benefits at large corporations (CEOs excluded)
8) would you like some more reasons?
A voucher system at least gives poorer people a chance to choose where to send their kids.
BTW, I do think it is a Left / Right issue in many ways. Many more traditional folk are tired of their kids being "captives" of the school system, tired of political "indoctrination" in the public schools and care less about whether public schools survive in the US. I don't care if they survive. I don't think poor products deserve government-guaranteed survival.
Give parents vouchers, let them choose and, maybe, just maybe, schools too will spring up for the really badly-behaved 10-year-olds that need help. But stop forcing those who are not rich to send their kids to "state" schools. And let parents of all political persuasions be free to choose a school that reflects their values, both personal and educational.