Would you believe that I saw some of this on a FB post from a hardcore lib I am still somehow friends with and she was apparently supportive of the Gov?
These stupid chain mails insult one's intelligence. Teaching 30 kids is not 30 times as much work as teaching one kid.
The fallacy Is here:
Each parent should pay $19.50 a day for these teachers to baby-sit their children. Now how many students do they teach in a day...maybe 30? So that’s $19.50 x 30 = $585.00 a day.
And they are perfectly free to find 30 students whose parents are willing to pay them $1.42 an hour.
However, that’s not what we’re offering. We’re offering a reasonable wage, an almost 2:1 match of your retirement plan contributions, and health insurance that we’ll subsidize by 88% - you’ll only have to pay 12% - a third of what other companies charge.
So, do you want the job or not? I have a lot of others waiting...
I see they think so highly of the students. I dare them to package the product they are trying to sell and demanding significant benefits to the public as “babysitting.” How about all the property tax that property owners have paid be returned to the rightful owners, and then the owners who want to use their property tax for education, choose private or public sector for their “babysitting” needs. No need for those without children who own homes or property, to continue to feed those at the public trough
“they even EDUCATE your kids!”
Really? Is that why nearly half of high school graduates are functionally illiterate?
This is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever read.
Them that can do them that can’t teech! Sorry U went publick
scool.
I’ve seen several of these on Facebook posts and have been having trouble coming up with a good reply.
It all depends on what the meaning of the word EDUCATE is, is.
why should someone who have masters degree get higher pay? Just wondering. Someone who have master degree may increase your chances of getting hired, but why should they get paid MORE? Their work is the same as one who don’t have a master degree
That is a really crappy analogy. It is like saying a retail sales clerk only makes about 1c per customer based on how many customers they deal with. The flaw in this is their admission that their job is to babysit, it isn’t but they treat it as such. Their job is to produce results- education.
Let’s look, for example, another analogy. In private industry, a corporate trainer for a Fortune 500 company averages about the same annual salary as a teacher without the time off. They have very similar job functions and requirements. That corporate trainer usually puts in 70-80 hours per week in prep and studying for their next class because their normal 40 hours are spent almost 100% in the classroom. They can often average anywhere from 20-50 people in a classroom or more, with no government nanny telling their employer they can only have 15 or so students. A corporate trainer not only has to have the skills of a trainer, but of an IT technician, customer service rep, sales rep, janitor, and whatever other duty they need to complete their job. Many corporate trainers even have doctorate degrees and are paying off student loans in the tens of thousands of dollars.
Because Corporate Trainers are generally ‘exempt’ employees, they have no unions protecting(sic) them.
If a corporate trainer walks out to protest, he or she is fired. If a corporate trainer supplies a fraudulent doctors note, he or she is fired. If a corporate trainer steals company resources such as using a corporate travel card for non-company business, such as traveling to a protest, not only is he or she fired, but he or she could also face criminal charges.
So cry me a river teachers. Welcome to life.
(and for disclosure, my wife is a teacher, albeit, she left the public school system last semester because of the politics).
Seriously though, wife and I both have our certs; both been Reg Repubs many years, and both support Wisc . Gov's mission to put the NEA back in it's proper place. It would be so nice to be paying over a gran/yr to a responsible union that wasn't so ultra left wing.
Honestly though, people will never see the entire picture until they spend time in the classroom.
I prefer a different salary calculator. How about every week or month, we test the students and give out salary based on the result of the students as opposed to a salary based on baby-sitting that is calculated by hours. If the teachers really care for the students, then they would support my idea
Dear lazy ass teacher,
I work 240 days a year and get TWO WEEKS vacation, you work 180 days and get about three months vacation.
I actually have to produce a valuable product to keep my job. If half of my projects were total failures like half of the high school graduates are, I would have lost my job within 6 months. As it is, you can continue to churn out idiots that can barely sign their welfare check and you keep your job year after year!
I have to pay over half of my retirement benefits and I have to make smart investments to make sure that it will be there when I retire. You are whining because the government wants you to go from contributing NOTHING to contributing a paltry 5.8%. In other words, for every $580 you contribute to your own retirement, the TAXPAYERS are on the hook for $9420. If I was offered that kind of deal, I would be thrilled, yet you whine. BTW, the Rats didn’t actually fund your retirement. Instead they relied on future taxes to pay them. Surprised? I don’t know why, you have known that this was true for decades.
Let’s face it, you don’t really give a crap about the semi literate children you propose to care for. If you did, you would be in the classroom teaching them as much as they can learn instead of complaining that your Democrat loving union was going to lose power.
The truth is that the golden goose that unions have been robbing for decades has stopped laying golden eggs and it is time to face up to that fact. Your short sightedness about getting what you want TODAY very may well cause the state to have to default.
So instead of whining, grow up.
Deduct 10% for each student that can’t read proficiently.
We don’t pay teachers on a per student basis.
And if they had 30 students in every class they’d be screaming about it.
Besides, it’s not just the parents of students that are paying for education. Everyone that pays taxes pays the teacher’s salaries and benefits, along with all the administrative costs.
Average superintendent salaries varied widely, from less than $90,000 in Augusta, Florence, Wheatland J1, Cameron, Phillips, and Wauzeka-Steuben to more than $170,000 in Madison, Green Bay, Racine, Milwaukee, and Whitefish Bay. When benefits were added, districts with the highest superintendent compensation were Madison ($256,715), Milwaukee ($243,365), Green Bay ($239,700), Franklin ($236,573), and Hamilton ($218,617).
School districts in Wisconsin employed nearly 1,750 principals, with 39 serving in that position in more than one school and six in more than two. The average principal was 48 years old, although nearly 20% were less than 40 and about a quarter were 55 or older. For full-time principals, the average salary was $90,966 and average benefits topped $36,000. Principal salaries varied widely, from less than $70,000 in Kickapoo, Crivitz, Weyerhaeuser, Cuba City, and North Crawford to more than $105,000 in Whitefish Bay, Arrowhead, Hamilton, Hortonville, and Mequon-Thiensville.
Salaries and benefits for all administrators statewide averaged $522 per student and 8.3% of operational costs. Administrator compensation averaged about 57% of all administrative costs, WISTAX said.
My ex-daughter-in-law figured this out years ago. So, she opened a day-care. Now, she’s a millionaire.
I was thinking about it and decided to come back with a response we can all use.
I have a lot of respect for teachers who sacrifice to teach, however, this email/post is so full of logical flaws, bad math, and the lack of basic knowledge of economics and business, it is no wonder why in Wisconsin, for example, has 38% illiteracy rates in middle school. Let’s take a look at just a few of the basic flaws here.
First, comparing hour per hour salary of a teacher to a baby-sitter is flawed. Removing the job each one does, they are two different job types. (Let’s assume in this example we are referring to a professional babysitter and not a teenager who does it from her home.) A teacher is an hourly or salaried employee who does not need to provide her own classroom, advertise for students, handle HR issues, and often, not even clean. A baby-sitter is contract labor. For every hour of work, they may spend ten hours preparing. They provide the location, pay their own insurance, either clean and prepare the location themselves or hire someone to do it for them, pay for all advertising, answer the phones, and more. The independent contractor baby-sitter does the job of the teacher, HR, janitor, building services, and district PR person.
A professional baby-sitter is also paid a premium for service for a flexible time at often a minim amount of time. Instead of a 40 hour week of hourly salary, they may work 40 hours of work or more per week for ten hours of paid contract work.
Next, a flaw in both basic math and basic economics is multiplying the salary by the number of students. With each student, you do not increase your expenses. Instead, major expenses such as the building, your insurance, support staff, etc, stay the same if you have one student in your classroom or 10. The greater number of students, the lower per share of each’s cost goes toward expenses. For example, if your classroom’s rent is $100/day. If you have one student, your expenses per student are $100/day. If you have 10 students, the building expense per student is only $10/day. Multiplying your salary as though you were a contract laborer, by student instead of by hour worked is improper math and bad business.
Next, looking back at the Department of education’s statistics regarding success in the classroom in Wyoming and using the baby-sitter analogy. If the baby-sitter failed in her job for a client, she would lose that client so she would not have a recurring payment from them. If they want to use that analogy, then the teacher should lose the hourly pay of all failing students, not continue to add it to her base. In most businesses, that failure/error rate would result in termination.
Maybe if teachers would get back to teaching and less demanding or complaining, they would learn something themselves and turn around our failing schools.
(This is just a sample of the flaws in this post. I could probably write ten more paragraphs on this, without even touching the grammatical errors in the original post.)