I've seen this Miami Herald story out a couple of times now, and I have to admit to having mixed feelings about it. The gist is this: 16% of teachers have a second job. The story goes on to talk about teachers in Florida who work two jobs, and the reasons why they do it.
Now, I may be under attack from my fellow educators for saying this, but I don't really think teachers are underpaid. Ok, maybe a little.
The starting salary, the article explains, is around $38,000 for teachers in Dade and Broward counties. To say that a young person entering the field needs to work a second job is a bit of a stretch. There are, obviously, plenty of people out there who work two jobs and don't manage that much in salary. It's not a lot of money, for sure, but it is enough to live on, to have the basic necessities and even a few luxuries.
The problem is that teaching attracts people who have a reasonable expectation of a certain quality of life. They are college graduates, after all, and college graduates expect a higher salary than that. They work a second job, some of them, to get them out of college debt or to get themselves to a certain standard of living. If they stick with it, educators have a pretty regular system of increases that make their salaries more lucrative over time.
But there's another trend I've noticed, that more and more first year teachers are entering the profession from other professions, having started off in another career where work wasn't as stable, or where they couldn't find happiness. That's great for schools: they get a more mature, experienced, and worldly person in the classroom, someone who has a greater separation from the students if they are working in a high school, and generally better decision making. They are probably also more likely to stay put.
The flip side is that these older entry year teachers need higher salaries. They have families, quite often. But they also have made a realistic assessment of their financial situation before they entered the classroom. They are ready to accept the salary they're given. Working in the public sector means that you aren't going to get rich. It's a given. No one in public education is really getting superwealthy--name another industry where the top of the scale is most likely under $200,000. Aside from a few superintendents in urban and wealthy suburban districts, there aren't many people in education making over, say, $110,000, and those are all administrators. What about sales, insurance, banking, and manufacturing? Are the tops of those fields making over $200,000? Of course. You think a guy running a bank that employs 200 people makes more than a guy running a high school that employs 200 people? You take it as a given that in the public sector, you're going to make less. That's how it goes.
After a few years, though, teaching salaries even out, and the average salary of a teacher with five or ten years experience is generally less than what professionals might make in the private sector (see above), but not bad, and is generally worth the trade off for having time off in the summer and the holidays--it's nice not working between Christmas and New Year's, for example--and the enjoyment that comes from working with young people.
Yes, some young people work two jobs to get the lifestyle they want, and that's not generally good for the school or the people trying to develop as teachers. But it's a reality that I think we have to accept. I would love to see starting salaries increased, but the political pressure from experienced teachers is always going to make sure that increased funding finds its way into the pockets of the upper end of the teaching ranks. So it goes. For those willing to endure those first few years of, not poverty, but lower-middle-classness, teaching has been and remains a pretty good life. Let's not shed too many tears for these young people who are willing to work hard and take a few lumps to build the life that they want. Good for them. They're exhibiting the work ethic and love of service that most of us would love to see modeled for our children. I'm not sure I'd really want that to change.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Teachers working two jobs
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Thanks for this post. I have often felt the same way -- that teachers earn a decent living. I work in NE Ohio, and after teaching for 7 years, I earn over $50,000 per year. Of course, I have an MS. Maybe that's another concern -- teachers fresh out of college have to pay for graduate school, which can be costly. And another thing to consider is geographic location. I grew up in SE Ohio, and the teachers there have starting salaries at $20,000. That is NOT a decent living. The cost of living there is about the same as mine, but the salary is much lower. Perhaps OEA and others should focus their energies on more equitable pay around the state rather than just increasing it across the board.
It could be, Dave, that it's the teachers' unions that think teachers are underpaid. Are their union incomes based on salary in any way?
Linda
Dave:
Thanks for the post. There is a war developing here in Hilliard over teacher pay. We have a 9.5 mill levy on the March 4 ballot, and folks are finally starting to figure out (in part due to my blog I think) that the thing that drives expenses in a school district is the salary and benefits costs of the teachers, administrators and staff. In our district 95% of the projected spending increase over the next five years is salaries and benefits.
For years, the teachers' union has been telling folks that they get modest-sounding 3-4% raises each year. Of course, they completely leave out the 4.15% step increase that take their total increases to over 7%.
The employees of our school district have never contributed to their health insurance premiums either.
And this year the School Board has taken the negotiating position that the teachers must start contributing to their health insurance costs AND knock 0.65% off their base pay increase (the 4.15% step increases remain).
Not surprisingly, the teachers' union has dug in, and the negotiations are now taking place under the guidance of a federal mediator.
And beginning this week, the teachers have begun to "work to the contract" which among other things mean they show up 10 mins before the bell, and leave 10 minutes after the last bell.
In most years, the community has tended to sympathize with the teachers. But the with the soft economy, weak real estate market, mortgage step ups etc, many community members are saying they're not willing to take on a 9.5 mill levy (which will cost the average homeowner about $600/yr) so the teachers can have more 7% raises, fully paid insurance, and a nice pension package (which may ultimately be the single most valuable benefit a teacher gets).
There are some interesting comments on the last couple of posts on my blog if you're interested.
PL
Most teachers are living in two-income situations, which can be very comfortable. Not quite so for the single teacher.
Beginning teachers' pay would be difficult to live on for the single wage earner in a home with a family to raise. But young people in most any job have to struggle and be frugal in the early years.
The pay and hours and vacations make teaching the ideal job for mothers whose children are in school.
Teachers' unions always start working on the next raise as soon as they get one. And the administrators get a raise if the teachers do --because they are, after all, the administrators --so the boards give them increases, too. So who really dislikes the pay raises? Just the tax payers whose property taxes are already sky-high.
Well, it sounds as though the Hilliard teachers have had it easy... very few teachers have a health plan they don't pay for.
But. There isn't a step at every year... not all teachers get a step. Few places have 30 steps, for example... some teachers will see only the annual increase.
By the way... why attack the unions here? When I was a teacher, I paid the union dues for one reason--so they would fight for the best possible contract for me.
What else are unions supposed to do? If it weren't for unions teachers wouldn't have the quality of life they have now. They'd be paid like private school teachers. Don't bash the union for doing what unions are supposed to do. It's called negotiating.
Dave, have you seen this yet?
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4962
Linda
Dave:
You are correct about the steps. Our teachers have steps at 0-15, 20 and 23 years. However it's worth noting that by the 16th year, a teacher with a Master's is making $72,000.
Teachers' unions are a different than industrial labor unions in a couple of ways.
When you talk about auto workers or coal miners or steel workers, the employer has the option to balance what the union is demanding vs the employer's desire to run that particular operation. In my hometown, some of the industrial employers decided it was more cost effective to move parts of their operations to the non-union Gulf Coast areas than it was to continue to pay high wages and benefits plus bear the risk of future strikes.
When that happened, the union folks decided they should back off on their demands a little, and shift their focus to job preservation. As a result there remains a decent number of industrial employers in the area and thousands of great jobs.
But a school district can't move. It's either give in to the teachers or suffer the consequences, much of which is borne by the kids - although property value can take a hit as well.
Similarly, if I am a customer of a company, and its workers drive up costs, which ultimately appear in the price I pay, or go on strike and disrupt the flow of something I need, I am free to choose another supplier. But a public school district has the exclusive right to run the publicly-funded school system that serves my address. If I want to change service providers, I have to move, which is never easy, and out of the question for many in today's real estate market.
This is the reason it is illegal for most government workers to strike. They are usually the exclusive service provider for some critical function, and if they stop providing that service, the public has no alternative provider.
The risk in our community is that this negotiation will break the parent's feeling of a partnership they share with teachers to nurture our kids. The demands seem greedy, and the job actions a threat to our kids. As a result, everyone is digging in their heels, and saying things they'll regret later.
I am very glad my kids were in school for what we'll probably view as the golden years for our district. I fear it's downhill from here...
Paul I'm working on a separate post to respond to issues you raise.
Personally, I think the teachers have a much better situation than most people with similar levels of education, especially the retirement program! As for Paul's comments, about being unable to move a school district, I've found the solution. I am taking my daughter out of the Hilliard schools and putting her into a Charter School, which is being run much more efficiently than the Hilliard schools and for much less cost per student. She has been in the Hilliard school system for 3 years, is gifted in Math, and has had some superior teachers, but also some who must be only there because of the protection that the teachers union offers. I believe that the teachers union is going to eventually lead to the disbanding of Hilliard Schools as more and more parents discover Charter Schools.
I know many of the teachers I work with have summer employment in between having to attend workshops and classes to keep updated on curriculum. I think districts that pay salaries like yours are fewer than you think. I know that ours is considered one of the "higher-paying" districts out of about a dozen in this area, yet it took almost 25 years for me to earn what you are earning after only 7.
Post a Comment