Are teachers underpaid

[Mike Farley]

"McKinsey argues that the best performing education systems nevertheless manage to attract the best. In Finland all new teachers must have a master's degree. South Korea recruits primary-school teachers from the top 5% of graduates, Singapore and Hong Kong from the top 30%.

They do this in a surprising way. You might think that schools should offer as much money as possible, seek to attract a large pool of applicants into teacher training and then pick the best. Not so, says McKinsey. If money were so important, then countries with the highest teacher salaries—Germany, Spain and Switzerland—would presumably be among the best. They aren't. In practice, the top performers pay no more than average salaries."

http://www.economist.com/world/internat ... id=9989914

[Dee Martinez]

LKWD citizens have passed every levy and bond issue since 1980. .

This is not correct. Lakewood voters rejected 2 or 3 levies in the mid-1990s.
This caused a basic shift in the board and adminsitration's attitudes toward voters and levies.
Unfortunately, some of your other factual claims are also questionable. Are you including benefits in your statement that teachers are "guaranteeed 4-6 percent raises every year? If we have a conversationi about facts we need to make it credible. What I have seen is a set of facts skewed to one point of view.

[ryan costa]

"McKinsey argues that the best performing education systems nevertheless manage to attract the best. In Finland all new teachers must have a master's degree. South Korea recruits primary-school teachers from the top 5% of graduates, Singapore and Hong Kong from the top 30%.

They do this in a surprising way. You might think that schools should offer as much money as possible, seek to attract a large pool of applicants into teacher training and then pick the best. Not so, says McKinsey. If money were so important, then countries with the highest teacher salaries—Germany, Spain and Switzerland—would presumably be among the best. They aren't. In practice, the top performers pay no more than average salaries."

http://www.economist.com/world/internat ... id=9989914

There are a lot of other structual differences and different conventions in Finland and south korea. primary and masters degree educations mean different things there. class sizes are different. There are different education tracks early on. It makes no sense to come right in and say, "we need more teachers with masters degrees". In America masters degrees are mostly busy work to cut down on applicants. And to provide more leeway for firing or not promoting teachers without having to give direct or informal reasons.

Anyone who does well in high school and has basic aptitude and interest in teaching should be able to teach K-6 classes after a few months of training seminars and workshops. Maybe they would be less effective at teaching the top 5 percent of children, but 95 percent of children aren't in the top 5 percent.

[William George]

Dee, maybe a levy or two was defeated. I was speaking figuratively on that response. But we have had levies or bonds passed in 1980, 83, 87, 90, two in 92, 95, 99, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2007. If one was defeated, it most likely got approved the next time it was on the ballot, as evidenced by the frequent passes listed above. I offered in my early posting to provide my information to anyone. And I did not receive a request from you. The School Board has my info. The Superintendant and Treasurer have my info and told me it was correct. The LTA president refused to discuss with me. What else am I to do? What else do you feel I'm wrong about? Please, let me know.

The Board was very suprised anyone would put this kind of effort into a "presentation". They all told me no one gets involved. That is all I'm trying to do. If you want my info, I'll send it to you. Or better yet, do the research yourself! It's all public information. Maybe you'll find a rounding error or minor flaw. In fact, the Board and Treasurer did find some flaws with my original presentation, but after meeting with them we made changes as they requested and gave them the revisions. I pruposely did not publish my information or give it out to anyone other than the school board members, administrators and LTA president to make sure any identified errors I may have had were corrected. I'm not affraid to admit when I'm wrong. Afterall, the contract alone is over 200 pages. I've spent months doing the research. I've read through at least 20 other school contracts at other cities. I've went to SRTS website, ODE website, and much of my information was provided to me by the school board treasurer. I spoke to industry professionals and reviewed studies. I didn't make this stuff up.

I don't want to name names, but your statement is actually incorrect. One of those 3 people you mentioned told me "it's up to the people to decide on a tax levy and the track record shows people usually approve any tax levy". It's the attitude, not the ultimatum. Again, not wanting to get personal, one of the people in the 7 I mentioned pointed to a survey taken several years ago that showed the majority of Lakewood Citizens would pass any levy. But that survey is outdated and people don't know the real story. They weren't told we have gym teachers making $80,000 (sarlay, not total compensation) a year. They looked towards ledership to tell them what to do rather than figure it out themselves. No one has the time to figure it out themselves. If you want to blame anyone, blame the tax payers. Antoher one of those 7 made the statement "it doesn't matter where you live, you'll pay taxes there too". That person just didn't get it, that taxes are significantly different in other cities and it DOES matter. That if I can afford a total mortgage payment of $1,500 and only $200 goes for taxes in stead of $300, I can afford a bigger or better home living in the city with lower taxes.

You question my credibility? How about the crdibility of the School Newsletter? You know, the one mailed to the citizens. I found misleading information published in a recent version. When I questioned it, no one seemed to know, no one checked into it.

It's a free society, and as I said in previous postings, I may be dead wrong on my opinion. I'm not trying to blast anyone. I just want change. The Board Members, Treasurer and Superintendant all want the same thing - good affordable education. All those people have done a lot of good for the citizens of Lakewood. All have dedicated their own time and effort. I applaud most of their efforts. They are ALL good people. But change is needed. That is where we may differ, what is the change that is needed?

Oh, and to respond to your question "Are you including benefits in your statement that teachers are guaranteeed 4-6 percent raises every year". Teachers ARE guaranteed between 4% and 6 % every year. THAT IS FACT for the first 18 years of service, and again at 20 and 24 years. In addition, teachers move vertically along the pay matrix and peridically receive between 3% and 9% additional increases for at least the first 18 years of service. LOOK IT UP YOURSELF in their contract. Since SRTS is a percent of your salary, than SRTS would go up an equal percent. And Health Care has FACTUALLY risen by a greater percentage each year (averaging around 10% the last 5 years). Since Health Care expense, Wages and Pensions make up 80% of the entire budget (AGAIN, Another FACT) it is not hard to understand how compensation is driving expense increases.

I did not present any skewed facts, just facts. Go back to the beginning of the discussion and re-read my postings.

[Bill Call]

I did not present any skewed facts, just facts. Go back to the beginning of the discussion and re-read my postings.

Thank you for all the effort.

I made several attempts to get some of the information you have provided but finally gave up. Information was incomplete, incorrect or non-responsive. The newest member of the school board is much more responsive. I hope he doesn't get into too much trouble.

In a sense though you are wasting your time. The the teachers and their unions are quit willing to destroy a school system rather negotiate a real contract. The answer "we will cut programs" tells you everything you need to know about the school bureaucracy. They WILL punish the students.

I think that Lakewood may have reached that critical mass where the voters finally have figured out they are being taken for a ride. I guess we will find out next year.

[Justine Cooper]

I posted that teachers of prior generations were better teachers than those of today, and I stand by that. I'm sure the education cabal can invent some statistics that they claim show otherwise, and I'm surer that the number of capable graduates will not be one of those statistics.

I base my judgment on having attended Lakewood schools, and a generation later, having been involved in those same schools as a parent; I also have a teaching degree, but I don't brag about that as I picked that degree because I was more interested in partying than studying, and the education degree was suited to those objectives as it was, may I say, not much of a challenge.

I question what weight we should give the postings from an individual who has not yet completed her degree (I was going to say education, but in reality our education continues through our life, unless we have real problems), who has never taught, and who is highly impressed by kindergarten teachers who are friendly and know her child's name; all our babysitters were friendly and knew our childrens' names, but that hardly meant they were good teachers.

For example, she asserts that teachers could beat students. When I attended the Lakewood schools, teachers did not beat students. Believe me, I was the sort of student who would certainly have had first hand knowledge if beatings were being administered.

I suspect that today a teaching degree includes coursework in evasion of responsibility for your own work (if a student does poorly, point the finger at someone else; never let them think you are at all responsible, except in the case of a student who does well). Other coursework apparently includes blaming the students, blaming their parent(s), blaming their lack of parents, blaming society, blaming TV and other electronics, and blaming the administration, the bomb, and global warming. The educational cabal cranks out reams of studies in support of these excuses, as though disinterested parents and societal problems were just invented. These problems have been with us for eons, and it is only today's teachers who seem to find them so overwhelming.

I agree that involved parenting is essential, but I'm not convinced that the educational level of the parents is essential. All of us are immigrants or descendants of immigrants (yes, even the Native Americans are apparently immigrants, but they got here first) and it has been my experience that most immigrants are not well educated, in the formal sense, but they value education, and insist that their children apply themselves.

My support for parental involvement is not good news for the public schools, however, because it is based on the remarkably good achievements of home schooled students. Few, if any, of the teachers of home schooled students have any professional credentials, and many don't even have a college degree. Yet armed with lesson plans from uncredentialed sources, they manage to impart a superior education to their children. So if an uncredentialed person can teach so productively, it would appear that the years spent getting an education degree are without much value, other than for demanding a higher salary from a school system that pays based on paper credentials, rather than productivity. I think this stands out most sharply in the case of administrators, who are hired and paid based on their paper credentials, without regard to whether they have any executive ability or leadership ability.

I'm not opposed to public schools. But I think they are in drastic need of change to make them more productive if we hope to serve our children and our community well, and I think we have ceded too much authority to the educational establishment that is, in many ways, failing us.

First of all I said "hit" not beat, and yes teachers and principals were allowed to hit students in the 70's. Second of all, to dismiss an opinion on teaching based on "she hasn't doesn't even have her license and has never taught" is ignorant. I have taught in alternative schools, have been recently trained in ABA therapy by the Cleveland Clinic and helping to teach a four year old with severe autism, and am almost done with my graduate degree. To say that you got your license because it coincided with your partying life, tells a lot more about YOU than it does about teachers and you have just insulted teachers everywhere! Teacher's licenses are more difficult now than they ever have been to obtain, and the work load is extremely full. The teachers are not just good because they are warm at Hayes, they are great because of how they work together and how all the teachers make a point to reaching out to kids that aren't even in their class! They are great for many reasons and I am also a parent in Lakewood and my opinion is that teachers are better now than they used to be. Having two different opinions is okay. Being rude and disrespecting ALL teachers in Lakewood is another, and saying blankly that ALL teachers used to be better isn't statistically or otherwise possible. I am glad you never taught, if the reason you got your license was to coincide with your partying. Who wants that kind of teacher for their child?

Your blanket anger at all teachers in Lakewood is obvious. Saying teachers must be getting classes on how to blame parents and others? Teachers take classes in collaborating with parents, in diversity, in cultural differences, and Lakewood teachers deal with the gamut of personalities and cultures. It is easy to say home lives haven't changed over the years, but having come from a social work background in inner cities, I am telling you the home life has deteriorated with the drug culture beyond belief. And yes, as a teacher you deal with the whole package and I sure didn't hear any teachers on the board complaining. Only you.

[Dee Martinez]

Dee, maybe a levy or two was defeated. I was speaking figuratively on that response. But we have had levies or bonds passed in 1980, 83, 87, 90, two in 92, 95, 99, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2007. If one was defeated, it most likely got approved the next time it was on the ballot, as evidenced by the frequent passes listed above.

May we agree on a few rules of honest debate here? When you are called out on a factual error, a good response would be "You are right. I stand corrected" as opposed to "I was speaking figuratively" I promise I will give you that courtesy in return. If memory serves, there were two levies which failed between 1993-1995, a third passed. The 1992 issue was for building repairs.
Next, I am wondering what levy or bond issue was passed in 2003. I am fairly certain that 2002 was an operating levy, and 2004 and 2007 were building issues.

Since you have done a lot of research on this, it would help to know if you have compared the "step" increases Lakewood teachers receive to others in neighboring districts or the state as a whole. It would also be beneficial to know what other districts require of teachers in terms of health and retirement benefits.
Before we can answer the question if Lakewood teachers are overpaid, we need to place them in terms of the overall market.

[stephen davis]

[William George]

Dee, I stand corrected. There may have been a levy or two that were turned down. That information was unavailble to me and I did not research how many levies were turned down. I appoligize for that. I went to the State of Ohio Tax Department and had someone fax levy/bond information to me. However, it sounds like you are unsure of exactly when and what levies failed in the past since you said "if memory serves me right". Never the less, I understand your point.

In 2002, a continuous operating levy was passed for 6.9 mil. Continuous means it never ends. In 2003, 2004 and 2007, 3 bond issues, one each year, were passed for a total of 9.65 mil. Those bond issues will run for 20, 27 and 27 years respectively. Those were for building new schools. I've been told by a board member the final bond issue to complete the building project will fall between 1 and 3 mil, depending on which schools remain open. But that is not a fact yet. I do know they will ask for 1 more bond issue within the next couple of years. No one can give me an exact date.

I never said teachers were "overpaid". I said they were "more than well paid".

In my report, I did do some comparisons with other districts. But I was unable to review all 409 Ohio School districts. But of the ones I did compare, Lakewood was the most generous. Some had higher annual increases. In fact, I found one that was over 5%. But starting pay was much lower. I compared the overall earnings for a new hire over a thirty year period and Lakewood came out ontop. Also, the Ohio Department of Education (ODE) does a "Like School District" comparison. Based on the ODE, the results were the same. Lakewood faired near the top in almost every category. To make a long story short, Lakewoods OVERALL contract is very generous. It may not be #1 in every category, but when you add them all up, it is very very high.

That being said, there are districts out there that are located in rural areas where teachers ARE underpaid because the tax base won't support it. In addition, some will argue that the schools used by ODE to compare us to are not fair. But I do not understand the methodology ODE uses to select comparitive schools. You can look up all "Collective Barganning agreements" on line and select any school you want. I encourage you to go to the ODE website and play around with the interactive report page - very cool.

My comparisons are in my report, which I would like to send to you. Please give me an e-mail address. Maybe you will find an error in my report that the Treasurer and Superintendant missed. I'm not be sarcastic, I really want to know of any errors I have. There is also other information in my presentation that I have not spoken about in this forum.

One more thing to understand. Lakewood is not the only city experiencing school financing issues. I was told by a Strongsville resident that the last levy they tried in November failed. Now there is a salary freeze. Last Tuesday, 9 citites in Cuyahoga County had levies/bonds to vote on for schools. Parma had two seperate levies on the same ballot and both failed. Brooklyn, Mayfield, Richmond Heights and South Euclid all failed. Fairview Park passed an "emergency 5 year levy". Maple Heights passed by only 14 votes. N Royalton passed and Rocky River passed. But of all those that passed, Lakewood currently has the highest milage dedicated to schools of all of them. In fact, Lakewood has the 7th highest milage (Out of 409 districts) in the State of Ohio. In other words, we have a higher percentage of property per $100,000 of home valuation than 402 other districts, only 6 are higher.

Many argue that comparisons is the best way to go. But Lakewood is different than many cities because it is old, land locked and is home to no large retailers or manufacturers like Walmart, Ford, etc. This does hinder Lakewood as assets of those large companies are taxed (to a certain extent).

We need to do what is right for Lakewood, not what works for other suburbs only. Not saying we shouldn't look at other suburbs, but what works in Parma might not work in Lakewood.

I hope I answered your questions. Thanks.

[Dee Martinez]

There are 611 school districts in Ohio, not 409. There have only been 2 bond issues passed since 2000 (are you possibly confusing the library building issue with the schools?) The 1 operating levy as you said was in 2002.
If this sounds like nit picking, its because you want to base your entire argument on facts, figures and research, but there are errors in your data. If the number of levies or school districts is wrong, what else is?

On the larger issue, yes Lakewood needs to do what is right for Lakewood but we dont exist in our own universe either. I dont want the lowest-paid teachers in Cuyahoga County teaching my children. Does anyone? I dont think the public would stand for that.

I believe Mr Davis has some good insight. If you are going to pay for 6 yrs of schooling for your son or daughter, why would you want them to be a teacher if people are going to think they will be resented at $50,000 a year?
I agree (you are not the first person to bring all of this up) that we need to set a phased-in goal of bringing teacher benefits more in line with the private sector. I think even the most-die hard union teachers are accepting that is on the horizon.
But I think you are also missing a key point. You are always going to pay more property tax in Lakewood because we dont have plants and shopping malls to pick up the slack like other cities. I presume that is one reason you chose this town over others. The upside comes with a downside.
Lakewood is not spending a particularly high dollar amount per pupil compared to other places nearby.

[Jim O'Bryan]

I question what weight we should give the postings from an individual who has not yet completed her degree (I was going to say education, but in reality our education continues through our life, unless we have real problems), who has never taught, and who is highly impressed by kindergarten teachers who are friendly and know her child's name; all our babysitters were friendly and knew our childrens' names, but that hardly meant they were good teachers.

Will


I have read this thread a couple times and have missed your credentials?

?


.

[William George]

Dee, you are correct, there are more than 409 districts, there are 609. I had 409 in my head, but went back to my report and found I had 609. The 609 came from the ODE website and is on page 9 in our report. In fact, having it 609 makes my point even more valid. You can obtain this information for yourself as it is available at http://ilrc.ode.state.oh.us/. This takes you directly to the interactive reporting page at the Ohio Department of Education. This is where I got the information. I don’t know where you got 611 from, but being only 2 apart is immaterial.

In regards to there being only 2 bond issues instead of 3, that was based on information I obtained from the State of Ohio Tax department. I will recertify the number against another source. But that still means there have been at least 11 "or soâ€￾ levies/bond issues since 1980. In addition, no one else from the aforementioned found errors with that part of our information. Again, not as serious a flaw as you would like to make it out to be.

You stated "errors in my data". What other errors did you find?

You stated "I don’t want the lowest-paid teachers in Cuyahoga County teaching my children. Does anyone? “Where did this come from? You make it sound like I said this, when the FACT is I never said that. That is actually the farthest thing from my mind. I want fair contracts for both sides. I want good teachers who are paid for performance and not just tenure. I want my children to be able to afford to live in Lakewood some day and not have to worry about an ever increasing tax environment that will make owning a home a luxury that only the rich and famous can afford.

You stated "Mr Davis has some good insight. If you are going to pay for 6 yrs of schooling for your son or daughter, why would you want them to be a teacher if people are going to think they will be resented at $50,000 a year?". What do you mean by resented at $50,000 year? I said the average salary was $63,278. And that number came directly from the Board of Education. If you think the Board of Education is providing bad numbers, than go complain to them. At no time did I ever state we should cut their salaries.

You stated "I agree (you are not the first person to bring all of this up) that we need to set a phased-in goal of bringing teacher benefits more in line with the private sector. I think even the most-die hard union teachers are accepting that is on the horizon." Guess what, I agree with you. That’s why I spent 3 months researching Teacher Compensation.

You stated "But I think you are also missing a key point. You are always going to pay more property tax in Lakewood because we don’t have plants and shopping malls to pick up the slack like other cities." Wrong again! I mentioned near the end of my last post that Lakewood is at a disadvantage because we don’t have manufacturers and retailers like Ford and Wal-Mart. But being at a disadvantage does not mean we need to continue to raise property taxes, there are many other options. You act like Lakewood is the only city that has this problem and that there are no other solutions.

You stated “Lakewood is not spending a particularly high dollar amount per pupil compared to other places nearby." Ok, a few things here. First of all, who do you consider "nearby"? I selected "17 nearby" school districts and did comparisons at the ODE website that I mentioned above and found the following: Lakewood ranks #1 in "Instructional Expenditure as a % of total budget" at 62.20% ($42 million). This means we spend a higher % of our budget on Salaries than the other 17 districts. Lakewood ranks #2 in "Instructional Expenditure per student". That means we spend more on Salaries per student than 16 of those 17 other districts. I compared Lakewood to Shaker, Cleveland, Independence, North Olmsted, Strongsville, Euclid, Westlake, Rocky River, Parma, Brooklyn, Brecksville/Broadview Hts, Fairview Park, Bay Village, Berea, N Royalton, Garfield, Avon. On this one, I would have to say you violated your own ground rules. I don't know where you get your information, but again, I obtained this from the Ohio Department of Education and these numbers were not disputed by the school board or treasurer.

Mr. Davis, you were cherry Picking. However, I realize your comments are broad and cover the entire discussion thread. I too do not form opinions on “hearsayâ€￾. That is why I did the research. I have yet to read anyone else provide me with their sources for information. It has all been opinion. And the only way to ensure people don’t take what they read as Fact without looking it up themselves is to provide the information from research completed. And that is what I did.

Looks like Dee has provided incorrect information this time. Anyone who wants a copy of the report, send and email to wageorge@cox.net.

[Dee Martinez]

Ill try to be concise.

You say that Lakewood ranks #2 in instructional spending per student as if thats a bad thing. Many parents and taxpayers would consider it a positive that money spent on schools is put into the classroom as opposed to adminsitration or buses. I will leave individuals to make up their minds on that.

The average Lakewood salary is indeed high, but as was discussed many months ago, that is in large part due to the fact that Lakewoods "baby boom" spurt resulted in a large number of teachers being brought aboard in the late 60s and early 70s. Those teachers are now at the very top of the pay scale. As they retire Lakewood's "average" salary will likely come down while newly expanded districts like Westlake or Solon go up. Again, numbers need context.

What is the dollar figure at which you believe Lakewood teachers are "better than well paid"? Is it $50,000 or $63,000 or some random number in between? Do we have to guess at which figure is your "trigger"? Lakewood starting teachers make about the average for the county, our spending-per-pupil is about average, too. For the most part, I just dont see anything out of line.

Yes you did acknowledge that Lakewood is unlike other suburbs in the structure of its tax base. But thats like acknowledging the sun sets in the west but complaining that its in your eyes on the way home. Its been the unspoken contract all along. You move to Lakewood because it has good schools and no Wal-Marts. Because it has no Wal-Marts, you pay more for the schools. You just cant expect to pay Brooklyn taxes for Lakewood schools. You can have one or the other.

I know a few teachers in Lakewood and elsewhere. They would like to have smaller classes, more time with students and less on paperwork. They dont like high-stakes testing. For the most part they arent complaining about being underpaid. (then again who among us says "I make too much"?)

The common ground remains the issue of benefits and thats where Id like to see the really hard numbers and comparisons.

(I believe the difference between 609 and 611 districts is due to consolidation of a couple of districts over the last 2years or so)

[William George]

First, I recertified my bond/levy statement and I was correct. I balanced the state of ohio information against information provided to me by The school Treasurer. They match 100%. I consider those two sources trustworthy. What is your source because I think it is wrong.

There you go sticking words in my mouth again. I pointed out that Lakewood was #2 in instructional spending per student to prove your previous statement was incorrect. I never implied anything.

When I said "Better than well paid" I mean they are paid better than average when you consider total compensation. Again, you are putting words in my mouth. I have not suggested at anytime or in any blog we cut there salaries. So I supposed you can assume I'm ok with the current slaries. I don't have any "trigger" as you suggest. Again, based on the ODE and the 17 surrounding districts, Lakewood starting teachers rank 8th out of 18 in average starting pay. But there is also the "like district" comparison on the CUPP report at the ODE which says Lakewood Teachers make more than average salary.

And your statement "our spending-per-pupil is about average" I already proved that statement wrong in my last e-mail - didn't you read it.

I proposed many cost saving ideas in my report. But it is 40 pages long. I can't get into all of that in this blog. But just to name a few: reduce guaranteed annual pay raises from 4 to 6 % to 2.5 or 3% flat. Have teachers share the cost of their insurance premiums (at a lower rate than the private sector, but a little more than they are paying now). Reduce administrator SRTS contributions from 24% to somewhere between 14% & 20%. Reduce staff by merly 8 postions (out of over 400). These steps alone would save the district between $2 & $3 million a year.

I'll say it one more time, read my report.

Dee, I still haven't seen any of your sources. You keep accusing me of being wrong and I keep providing you with my sources and information and proving I'm correct. What gives?

[stephen davis]