CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
This debate has ended. You can no longer add arguments or vote in this debate.
Are Teachers Overpaid?
The CFO of the San Diego Unified School District revealed that the average salary for the teachers on his payroll was 92K plus 20K in benefits that they don't have to pay for. The superintendent spoke out and said that his numbers were a lie and that teachers only average 70K plus benefits. An average of 70K is still huge when considering all of the benefits that teachers get.
Who gets tenure anywhere else? Who is immune from getting fired for under performing? I understand that a good teacher with stupid students would get a bad rating, but there needs to be some middle ground. Most pay increases are based on merit everywhere else. Plus, they get a lot of holidays and time off.
To say bad teachers are immune from being fired is a bit of an exaggeration, though I would agree it is too hard to fire bad teachers.
As for it being a part time job though, a good teacher's time in the classroom is only a portion of their job. It is not unusual for teachers to work 16 hour days throughout the school year. This is partially made up for through the number of Holidays they get, but I believe most teachers put in more actual hours of work throughout the year than the average 9-5 year-round job.
Well, it depends. If you worked 16 hours in one day would you expect to be paid for 16 hours or for an 8 hour day? On the other hand, say you're a freelancer (happens to be what I do) if I estimate something will take 16 hours and it takes 8, I don't expect to be paid for the extra 8 hours.
Teachers aren't paid during the summer though, sometimes in order to ensure a consistent cash flow school districts will proportion payment so it is year-round, but it is still based on the school year.
So, are you saying teachers only get 9/12 of the 72K that is reported as the salary? If that is the case, then it would be hard to say they are overpaid.
Those that make 72k (which is way more than most make btw, most are below the national average income, 40k or so) they are paid that for when they work. That is their salary for those 9 mo. or whatever it is. If you take a teaching job and you have a contracted salary of 32k, that is what you make in that year.
I'm very curious where you get the 72k number. I suspect it is including administrators.
I am sorry you didn't have time to read to the debate description, the San Diego school district in California released those numbers. The superintendent said it was in that area for the SDUSD, and the CFO reported an even bigger number.
A teacher who is on salary for 32K makes 42,666 in a 12 month year, but lose a quarter of their pay because they don't work for 3 months.
I made the argument on the other side that the average is probably skewed, so I see your point. So, are you saying that a salary of 70K would be too much for a teacher?
Yeah, it says what that guy said the average salaries were, but then he corrects himself. This leads me to believe he has a reason to want to pad the numbers. That's not unreasonable I think.
I'm wondering if the revised numbers include principals and other higher-level administration. I see nothing which addresses the actual findings. I would want the numbers given the tone of the article, prior to making a judgement on that particular district.
Looks like most states start a bit below the mean average income, after 10 years or so you can make an okay living. Places like NY and CA, where it is very expensive to live, they make about enough to buy a small home in a decade and a half and usually eat okay and get around in a used car.
I'd require a PHD for each teacher as well as required extra courses on child psychology. I'd make them pass regular proficiency tests in their subject and their ability to handle large numbers of children from all socio-economic backgrounds, and then I'd pay them starting minimum 200% of average income for the State.
To pay for this I'd cut subsidies to oil and farming conglomerates and close corporate loopholes in the tax code that allows them to pay 0% in taxes.
Within a decade we'd again have one of the best or the best education system in the world, which means more innovative citizens who contribute more to society, making our country even more well off. It would more than pay for itself over time.
Devaluing an important job is no way to attract better teachers. It does the very opposite.
I can't tell if your idea is brilliant or insane. That idea definitely sounds like it would make everything better. I think I would like to live in this fantasy land that you describe.
That sounds false. Smarter and more comprehensive sound like qualifiers that make your statement false. What do you mean by smarter and more comprehensive, it worked to reduce violence? Doesn't Honduras have gun control?
That is simply not true. In fact, it is patently false. Do you really believe that people all of a sudden are going to stop committing crimes because there are no guns? What have you been smoking? ;)
It's not fantasy land. It's similar to what countries that are beating us in every area of education do, just taken further because we're America and we should do better then other countries.
Do a better job of educating. Countries like Japan, Finland, Sweden, Norway, all of who absolutely destroy us year after year in education, all spend significantly larger portions of GDP on education. It doesn't even mean you need to spend more per student necessarily, it does mean they take educations seriously.
The degree to which education in the US has declined is directly proportional to the degree to which one side of the country has decided we don't need teachers. That is the correlation. Every year we expect teachers to teach more students for less money, we expect students to learn even if they don't have enough to eat, we expect them to pay attention without PE or music or other things to trigger their creativity. All for what? Like .10 cents more in taxes for the average tax payer?
We are becoming stupider, and the mentality that teachers are not important is one of the factors which has allowed this to happen.
What part of your suggested fixes are being done in Japan, Finland, Sweden, and Norway. Is it just that they spend more money? How are they spending money better? I was trying to figure out which part of your suggestion was reasonable.
Holding education in higher regard. They make it a higher priority. We can emulate some specifics of how they go about the actual practice, but I'm referring to their efforts toward education. We don't try. All of the changes we have made in education in recent years have been toward less emphasis, from generic lazy testing criteria to defunding.
Awesome, nothing you said is being done anywhere else, and how is that not fantasy land? Maybe if the Democrats didn't vote to fund EVERYTHING we would have money for schools. Schools should have been made the top priority, but other spending got in the way. I am sure people think defense is the problem, and it is taking a lot of money, but the priority after defense has not been school, and that is the fault of the side that you claim is on the teachers side.
I agree that teachers are not overpaid, I disagree that these entertainers are overpaid though.
People pay to be entertained, so why shouldn't the entertainers get that money? I believe they are underpaid. A football player that people actually come to see only makes a fraction of what the owner of the football team makes for example, and what does the owner do? Virtually nothing. They don't even build stadiums, they get subsidized by taxpayers for that. It's a scandal. All teams should be run like the Green Bay Packers.
They are overpaid because Doctors dont even make that much money (they work way harder) and they dont need all that money thats why they waste it on stupid crap. For example, Last year Rihanna spent 10,000 on her wig one wig. Thats ridiculous one person should not have so much money. People are starving and were giving people all this money to waste when we could use this money for missionaries. Entertainment is important but not that important because a long time ago entertainment almost didn't exist.
Your tag has you siding with "teachers are overpaid" you may want to change that.
That some people with money don't know how to handle money does not mean they did not earn that money.
Music and entertainment are not necessities, people don't have to pay for them like they have to pay for health or food or water. If they charge too much then people will stop buying tickets and cds or stop going to football games.
The creator of the work should I think get paid whatever people are willing to pay. I see nothing wrong with that. Where I have a problem is ownership and proportional pay. In sports you have a unique situation, it is a legal monopoly that is at the same time subsidized by tax payers. If owners put up their own money for things like stadiums, if it was their own money that paid salaries of players, I'd not have a problem. What has been allowed to happen though is subsidized risk and privatized profit. That is, if they make money they get the money, if they lose money the public pays them anyway.
If we are going to subsidize an industry like football, then those profits should go to the ones who actually make the money, the players. Or we could not subsidize it, then the owners would be justified in making whatever since they are the ones taking the risk...
I have a feeling you know very little of what I'm talking about though. Is this making sense to you?
O I didnt even notice I'm just so used to pressing the dispute button.I know that they worked for their money but they didn't work that hard. I don't think they deserve it. Doctors stand on their feet for 6 to 20 hours doing brain surgery and that takes a lot of precision. They don't make even close to what celebs like Beyonce make.
They charge way too much for tickets sometimes like I heard for good seats to a concert you can pay around $400. That's rent! A lot of people can't afford that I sure as hell can't. Even if I could I'm not a retard I'm not going to give you my utility bills money.
I understand what you are saying. The players and the owners are overpaid.
The teacher is the potter, the student the clay. The teacher shapes the student into what he becomes, spending his/her whole life into crafting a good citizen. All the people who are famous in the world, had good teachers.
Teachers, thus, can never be overpaid for their work.
Maybe we should up their salary to $1 Million. Maybe they would do even better shaping. I am not sure you should be praising the teachers of everyone famous, we should lock up Lindsay Lohan's, Paris Hilton's, and the Kardashians' teachers.
Teachers are not overpaid. They earn every penny of the money they make. And NO, they are not paid in the summer. The teachers must SAVE money so they can survive in the summer.
Teachers on average make about 36,000 dollars a year. I don't know what kind of teachers you are talking about that are claimed to make that much.. but thats not true. And 36,000 is not nearly the amount they deserve. Teachers deserve much more money for what they do. They teach us the foundation as well as the extra things we need in order to strive in life, and go where we want to go in order to pursue our dreams. They also take care of us while we are at school. They are like babysitters in a sense. They provide for us knowledge, but also they provide their attention and advice if need be. Teachers are so much more than we credit them for. They are not overpaid at all.
Where do you get your figure from? I presented the numbers that the CFO and superintendent reported and those guys are involved with paying the teachers. I think for the most part your figures are more correct though for the majority of teachers and when we add in all of the high priced administration the average shoots up. My numbers are also for California which is more expensive to live.
I got it directly from my teachers. Also, Every trusted source online will tell you the same thing. (not exact but within close range) My numbers are from Oregon.
I am sure the average salaries calculated include highly paid administrators which bumps up the average so much that most teachers don't make near the average.
It is basically a part time job. They work until 2:30PM, and only 9 months out of the year. They aren't responsible for creating anything, "Those who can't do, teach"
Have you ever taught before? No offence... Are you familiar with the laws of the educational industry?
What I'm trying to say is that things are a pretty strict. You are given touch schedules. You have to get across a topic of any level to all sorts of brain. In the time prescribed to you. You need to teach the right thing. You have to be careful of what you say and etc, etc. Above all you are of high influence to many.
"Those who can't do, teach"
That must be where you stay. Here in India, teaching is accepted as a passion.
In California there is terrible oversight and not too many rules. America is falling behind in education to other countries. Maybe it is because we don't have the passion of Indian teachers.
Oh yes. I'd second that. Its true. Passion is very essential. It cannot be simple taken for granted. Teaching is an art and very importantly noble. You have to direct students to like something, understand and appreciate something the way you do.
That actually sounds about right, if that is what they are paid. If all teachers were paid that much and we then, after they are paid that much only, loosen some of the tenure rules and do a better job of getting rid of the bad teachers and hiring good ones (since if teachers really made that much more people would want to teach) then maybe we can catch up to countries like Finland and Japan.
Funny how it is the same people who scream CAPITALISM every chance they get like they have turrets are the ones who have some weird hang up when it comes to using capitalism to help improve our school system.
Well, the teacher's union protects bad teachers as well as good ones. I imagine the teacher's union would fight pretty hard against the changes you propose. With the union bad teachers aren't in danger because they don't have to perform so well, thus not really capitalism.
True only to an extent. On the other hand when workers cannot become unionized they have no protection, wages drop, working conditions are worsened, etc and as a result it is more difficult to recruit high quality teachers.
Getting rid of unions completely would have just as bad or perhaps a worse effect on the quality of education, not to mention de-unionization is always bad for economies because it transfers money from people who need money to spend, to people who put it in the bank or off shore accounts to just sit there collecting dust.
But there is no reason you cannot legislate education standards and teacher standards and deal with unions within that criteria.
I wasn't suggesting getting rid of the union, I am suggesting that the teachers union prevents the school system from being updated with your stated improvements and is preventing "capitalism" from being able to make things more competitive
I agree. And payment for good teachers I believe would be an excellent tool toward negotiating looser criteria for getting rid of teachers who are not performing.
