K-12 Schools & COVID

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

There's a teacher shortage because nobody wants to work anymore

I'm so tired of hearing this.  Labor shortage is a combined result.

The unemployment rate is a historical record low 3.4%.  People are already working and the pool is not very deep.

1 million people died from the pandemic and they're not available to work ever again.

A lot of Boomers retired early because why risk COVID when you can afford to retire.

We can work out changes to immigration to fill positions but you know.......

[tower912]

Amen.

[🏀]

Yeah, sittin' home on one's fat ass collectin' da bag sure has worked out just fine, aina?

jesmu, you hooked a lunker here with that bait.

[Jay Bee]

So no then. And that's my point. There's a difference between "I need to work more than 40 hours of week or I won't advance/get a bad review/be looked down/etc" and "I have 40 hours of work scheduled that I can't do more efficiently and an additional 5-20 hours of work a week that I have to take home or I will lose my job".

You’ve got it wrong. Your point is invalid. Again, this isn’t about me or another single example, but I absolutely today must work more than 40 hours a week & work - at times - “odd hours” - I must do it.

Teachers are nothing special in that regard (if true that most of them do this)

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

You’ve got it wrong. Your point is invalid. Again, this isn’t about me or another single example, but I absolutely today must work more than 40 hours a week & work - at times - “odd hours” - I must do it.

Teachers are nothing special in that regard (if true that most of them do this)

Must? No. I don't know about your job specifically but most salaried employees can leave work after 40 hours a week (or however many hours they are compensated for) and not fear being fired provided they are working efficiently and producing quality work. You've just been conditioned to believe a lie that you must work more. An employee may need to work more than 40 hours to get ahead, be exceptional, or even just to breakeven (if they have a "time management issue" as you put it), but not to keep their job. If you must work more than 40 hours a week to produce just enough value to avoid being fired, you either aren't working efficiently/don't have the capacity for the position or your being exploited/undercompensated.

Odd hours sure. Lots of jobs require working outside of business hours, though that's usually on occasion. Few require it on a near daily basis.

[Jay Bee]

Must? No. I don't know about your job specifically but most salaried employees can leave work after 40 hours a week (or however many hours they are compensated for) and not fear being fired provided they are working efficiently and producing quality work. You've just been conditioned to believe a lie that you must work more. An employee may need to work more than 40 hours to get ahead, be exceptional, or even just to breakeven (if they have a "time management issue" as you put it), but not to keep their job. If you must work more than 40 hours a week to produce just enough value to avoid being fired, you either aren't working efficiently/don't have the capacity for the position or your being exploited/undercompensated.

I’m trying to figure out if it’s just semantics, but I think you’re just dead wrong here.
 
When job listings state, “this position will or may require overtime hours” or something similar, do you think it’s just for kicks? They’re saying it’s a job requirement, but it’s cool if you’re not into working any “required” overtime?
 
I used public accounting as an example because I actually experienced it. The idea that a young professional could simply tell his audit team, ‘hey, I really kicked butt these past 40 hours… I’m heading out. See ya next week!’ and stay employed with that firm is ludicrous. 

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I’m trying to figure out if it’s just semantics, but I think you’re just dead wrong here.
 
When job listings state, “this position will or may require overtime hours” or something similar, do you think it’s just for kicks? They’re saying it’s a job requirement, but it’s cool if you’re not into working any “required” overtime?

Most salaried positions don't or are compensated for overtime hours. Teachers aren't.

I used public accounting as an example because I actually experienced it. The idea that a young professional could simply tell his audit team, ‘hey, I really kicked butt these past 40 hours… I’m heading out. See ya next week!’ and stay employed with that firm is ludicrous.

I'm sure there are individual examples where that is true but it is not an industry standard like it is with teaching. And if it is true, are you really saying that a firm would prefer an employee who can get twice as much work done in 40 hours than what another employee can do in 50? If so, you should introduce them to some tempo free stats!

And more and more young professionals are starting to do exactly what you describe in your last sentence and they are somehow still staying employed!

Dumb companies care about how many hours you work. Smart companies care about how much you accomplish.

[Jay Bee]

You’re providing commentary that doesn’t have to do with what I’m talking about: there are plenty of jobs out there where overtime is expected and required. You will not remain employed in these jobs if you don’t work overtime. You’re not going to get paid more if you work 50 or 70 hours vs. 40 hours, but it’s quite literally part of the job.
 
There are many jobs (including ones I’ve been around a lot – such as in accounting, finance, investment banking, legal, etc.) that can be transactional or project based with tight timelines. It’s part of the job.
 
It’s not acceptable for a lawyer to do this: “Oh hi, I really like my firm and we got this great engagement. There are really tight timelines and tons to do, so it’s stressful but I’m excited to work on it. To that end, I am going to be ultra-productive in my 40 hours before I wrap it up for the week, because that’s what my firm and my client needs from me! Toodles!”
 
I’d fire myself if I only worked 40 hours a week. I understand maintaining a healthy balance, not getting overly burned out, keeping stress/health issues at bay, etc. is all important and something people need to work on – but that’s not what I’m trying to convey here. What I’m telling you is fact is that there are a lot of jobs where overtime is effectively required and a part of the job.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

And more and more young professionals are starting to do exactly what you describe in your last sentence and they are somehow still staying employed!

Yeah, this was also said a lot in the mid-90s about GenX. And guess what? People decided they actually didn't mind working, liked being promoted and making money, and put in the hours to do so. There aren't many 50 year olds working the same job they did out of college.

And back to your point, teachers can do things other than teach K-12 school students. They are free to exit the industry and try something else.  And obviously many have! They have translatable skills!

But that's a reason they should be paid more. They are going to have to do so to make the professional attractive.

Dumb companies care about how many hours you work. Smart companies care about how much you accomplish.

Of course. But there are jobs that are very difficult, if not impossible, to accomplish regularly working forty hours a week.

[MUBurrow]

It has been my experience that a vast majority of salaried positions carry the expectation that the employee is going to work in excess of 40 hours per week. I don't claim to be an expert on the rules that make that employee exempt or not-exempt from being entitled to overtime pay, though I think it has something to do with whether the employee has any control or management authority over those hours.  Though I think that "control" or "management authority" is a fairly low standard to meet.

[forgetful]

You’re providing commentary that doesn’t have to do with what I’m talking about: there are plenty of jobs out there where overtime is expected and required. You will not remain employed in these jobs if you don’t work overtime. You’re not going to get paid more if you work 50 or 70 hours vs. 40 hours, but it’s quite literally part of the job.
 
There are many jobs (including ones I’ve been around a lot – such as in accounting, finance, investment banking, legal, etc.) that can be transactional or project based with tight timelines. It’s part of the job.
 
It’s not acceptable for a lawyer to do this: “Oh hi, I really like my firm and we got this great engagement. There are really tight timelines and tons to do, so it’s stressful but I’m excited to work on it. To that end, I am going to be ultra-productive in my 40 hours before I wrap it up for the week, because that’s what my firm and my client needs from me! Toodles!”
 
I’d fire myself if I only worked 40 hours a week. I understand maintaining a healthy balance, not getting overly burned out, keeping stress/health issues at bay, etc. is all important and something people need to work on – but that’s not what I’m trying to convey here. What I’m telling you is fact is that there are a lot of jobs where overtime is effectively required and a part of the job.

What you don't get, or don't acknowledge, is all those other jobs you are talking about are very well compensated.

Teachers are not.

Also, in addition to their normal salaries, if they are deemed to put a lot of extra time in (e.g. billable hours for an attorney), they get bonuses, not uncommonly around the same size as the teachers actual take home salary.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

It has been my experience that a vast majority of salaried positions carry the expectation that the employee is going to work in excess of 40 hours per week. I don't claim to be an expert on the rules that make that employee exempt or not-exempt from being entitled to overtime pay, though I think it has something to do with whether the employee has any control or management authority over those hours.  Though I think that "control" or "management authority" is a fairly low standard to meet.

There is also a compensation threshold to be salaried.  I believe it's more than $17.10 an hour. 

[cheebs09]

How much of the teacher shortage is due to rising college costs? At least to me, it seems like the salaries of teachers are not in line with the rising costs of college. Then you add in some of the additional things teachers have been dealing with over the years.

Unless you have a deep passion for teaching, it feels like a difficult choice to make to go to school to be a teacher. Hence, Sultan’s comments about needing to raise pay to incentivize. It feels like we can theorize what teachers should be paid and the rationale, but the market is giving us empirical evidence it is not enough.

[Jay Bee]

What you don't get, or don't acknowledge, is all those other jobs you are talking about are very well compensated.

Teachers are not.

This is all subjective. In the late 90s you had first year accountants working 2,500-2,700 hours for $35k flat, no bonus. Was that very well compensated?

Regardless, my point has been working around 2,000 hours a year isn’t some radical, crazy thing unique to any teachers that do so. Overtime is real and oftentimes required.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

This is all subjective. In the late 90s you had first year accountants working 2,500-2,700 hours for $35k flat, no bonus. Was that very well compensated?

Were there accountant shortages at the time? Not that I recall. Therefore I would say they were well compensated.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

This is all subjective. In the late 90s you had first year accountants working 2,500-2,700 hours for $35k flat, no bonus. Was that very well compensated?

Considering that $35,000 in 1999 is equal to $62,246.62 today. Yes, they were well compensated.

Regardless, my point has been working around 2,000 hours a year isn’t some radical, crazy thing unique to any teachers that do so. Overtime is real and oftentimes required.

And this is where you are confused. No one has implied that it is. No one is saying teachers work harder than most other jobs. YOU were the one who implied that teachers work less than most other jobs. I and others aren't trying to say that teachers work more than most, we are saying that their work is comparable to most despite getting summers off. And despite their workload being comparable, they are paid significantly less than most other salaried positions.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Yeah, this was also said a lot in the mid-90s about GenX. And guess what? People decided they actually didn't mind working, liked being promoted and making money, and put in the hours to do so. There aren't many 50 year olds working the same job they did out of college.

Yep. And there were also GenXers who found companies that valued their time and got promoted despite limiting how much extra they work. There were also those that got promoted just based on longevity. And there were also those who hopped from company to company rising the ladder because they were a great interview. Same will be true of GenZers, though I think work culture is shifting enough that a higher percentage will stick to lower work hours.

[pacearrow02]

Considering that $35,000 in 1999 is equal to $62,246.62 today. Yes, they were well compensated.

https://dcjobsource.com/teachersalaries.html

If $62k in todays dollars is considered fair compensation then you’ll be happy to know that is almost exactly the avg salary for a k-12 teacher as of 2020.

More updated 2022 figures with link below

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/teacher-pay-by-state

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

If $62k in todays dollars is considered fair compensation then you’ll be happy to know that is almost exactly the avg salary for a k-12 teacher as of 2020.

More updated 2022 figures with link below

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/teacher-pay-by-state

Nice try. By that is the average of ALL teachers, whether they are fresh out of school or have been teaching for 70 years and have graduate degrees. Not first years which was the example given.

From your article:

It's crucial to note that these are overall average teacher salaries. Starting teacher salaries are much lower and are often far below the livable wage in many states. The District of Columbia and New Jersey are the only states with starting teacher salaries over $50,000, with $55,209 and $51,443. Unfortunately, the livable wage is $68,000 in D.C. and $56,000 in New Jersey.

Despite that, that number is still about $4000 a year less than $62,246.62

[pacearrow02]

Nice try. By that is the average of ALL teachers, whether they are fresh out of school or have been teaching for 70 years and have graduate degrees. Not first years which was the example given.

From your article:

Despite that, that number is still about $4000 a year less than $62,246.62

That's fair. 

Couldn't find anything definitive showing how long it takes for a first year teacher to get from the avg 1st year salary of $40K(ish) up to that national avg of $60+ but I for one would support a bump in teacher pay across the board!

[JWags85]

Nice try. By that is the average of ALL teachers, whether they are fresh out of school or have been teaching for 70 years and have graduate degrees. Not first years which was the example given.

From your article:

Despite that, that number is still about $4000 a year less than $62,246.62

My issues with "livable wage" when examining starting salaries is that its misleading.  I highly doubt the majority of green, just starting teachers are the sole breadwinner for a family of 4.  It just muddies the argument with misleading data points.  Unless they really wish to attract mid career professionals switching professions to teaching.

What you don't get, or don't acknowledge, is all those other jobs you are talking about are very well compensated.

Teachers are not.

Also, in addition to their normal salaries, if they are deemed to put a lot of extra time in (e.g. billable hours for an attorney), they get bonuses, not uncommonly around the same size as the teachers actual take home salary.

This is hilariously naive.  There are plenty of accountants, financial analysts, legal staff, etc... that aren't receiving fat bonuses.  People see "finance" and assume they are all Gordon Gekko.  You really think most people in finance are bringing down $70K bonuses every year?

My uncle was an immigration attorney for 30+ years.  I don't think he ever broke $85K, and that was in Boston, not the Midwest.  He absolutely wouldn't have had a job if he punched out at 5 every day.  There are plenty of people in the legal profession that aren't highly compensated white shoe Harvey Spectors.

Again, this is not to say "f teachers, they have enough".  There is certainly changes that need to be made in how the profession is approached, recruited for, and compensated.  But the discussion can't be buoyed by false assumptions and comparisons.

[ZiggysFryBoy]

Getting rid of teachers unions would be a good start for teachers to be paid fairly for the work they do. And treated like professionals by the administration and board,  not unskilled labor.

[Uncle Rico]

Getting rid of teachers unions would be a good start for teachers to be paid fairly for the work they do. And treated like professionals by the administration and board,  not unskilled labor.

Would work for cops, too

[Hards Alumni]

Getting rid of teachers unions would be a good start for teachers to be paid fairly for the work they do. And treated like professionals by the administration and board,  not unskilled labor.

What are you on?

Act 10 has been devastating for school districts and teachers across Wisconsin.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

As always The Onion is right on queue.

Teachers Reveal Why They Are Quitting Their Jobs

https://www.theonion.com/teachers-reveal-why-they-are-quitting-their-jobs-1849443196/slides/1