3 ms·

> Take a look at this page of actual salaries for SFUSD, and actual total pay and benefits for SFUSD teachers: https://transparentcalifornia.com/salaries/search

• rahimnathwani 4y ago
  > You're showing the top of a table sorted by total comp in a particularly well paid district (as property tax revenues pay teachers). This is not representative. This is how I chose that link: 1. Go to the web site. 2. Enter the name of a friend who is an SFUSD elementary school teacher. 3. Click on the job title. Whilst SFUSD may not seem representative to you, it seems representative to me, because: - it's my local district, and where I had planned to send my son to school - there are often cries that SFUSD teachers are underpaid, can't afford to live in SF etc. I'd encourage you to share a different link, that shows evidence that my 45% claim is off. > You can't raise standards while you have a shortage. You need a surplus to be selective. Yes you can, if you have to be willing to relax two assumptions: - public school teacher pay must be based only on tenure and credentials (i.e. you can't pay new teachers more than existing teachers) - new teachers must be willing to spend a year getting a teaching credential (i.e. no one can easily switch jobs from a different profession) These two are preventing public schools from tapping sources of great teachers (e.g. folks like you, with industry experience and a love of teaching). Imagine if Sal Khan were to apply for a teaching position at SFUSD, and was willing to work for $150k base. They wouldn't hire him, because: - he doesn't have a teaching credential (AFAIK); - even though he might be as effective as two existing teachers, union contracts determine pay ranges. > I enjoy it and it feels more impactful. Yup, 100% makes sense.
  • mlyle 4y ago
    > 3. Click on the job title. You still have a table sorted by comp, where the top many rows include teachers who have taken on administrative duty, worked over summer, etc. > Whilst SFUSD may not seem representative to you, it seems representative to me, because: Sorry, this doesn't fly. You made a blanket statement about public school teachers, not public school teachers in SF. > - there are often cries that SFUSD teachers are underpaid, can't afford to live in SF etc. And the lower rows in those tables, making $45k base (or less) plus benefits, are going to have a pretty hard time doing so. And, SF is still a much more desirable working environment and comp environment than most public school districts. > > You can't raise standards while you have a shortage. You need a surplus to be selective. > Yes you can, if you have to be willing to relax two assumptions: No, if you are going to pull people into the profession from elsewhere, you're going to need to have higher average comp than now. You probably have to also significantly improve working conditions. After all, us private school teachers are willing to make 30% less for better working conditions. Another faulty assumption is that academic performance is the key figure of merit for educational effectiveness. If you're teaching computer science or calculus, maybe it's very important. On the other hand, this is probably not true for elementary teachers. And while salaries overall correlate to SAT scores, it is a very poor predictor of salary in most fields.
    • rahimnathwani 4y ago
      > Sorry, this doesn't fly. You made a blanket statement about public school teachers, not public school teachers in SF. You questioned my 45% assertion. I provided some data. You say it's not representative. I invited you to provide different data that contradicts my point. Again, I invite you to change my mind by showing me some more representative data. I checked another district in California (Morgan Hill). Looking at all 2021 employees whose job title includes the word 'teacher', the median additional compensation is 21% of base salary. I'm not familiar with this district, so I don't know whether those numbers include the present value of unfunded pension liabilities. If so, the actual number is higher. > And the lower rows in those tables, making $45k base (or less) plus benefits, are going to have a pretty hard time doing so. Those numbers are total compensation in a particular calendar year, and may be for employees who worked part time or joined/left part way through the year. No elementary school teacher in SFUSD has a base salary that low.[0] > No, if you are going to pull people into the profession from elsewhere, you're going to need to have higher average comp than now. This doesn't contradict what I said. One of the things I said (paraphrased) is that you have to be willing to pay new teachers more, without being constrained by the salaries of teachers hired under the old system (with the old bar). > Another faulty assumption is that academic performance is the key figure of merit for educational effectiveness. I'm not sure where this point is coming from. I never stated or implied this assumption. I did refer to academic performance (as estimated by SAT score). Academic performance affects career options. When we talk about some profession being underpaid or overpaid, we have to compare pay to other occupations that those currently employed could actually get. And teachers' unions explicitly accept this. They compare teachers' salaries not to median salaries in the country, but to salaries for people with bachelors degrees, or masters degrees. But that ignores the wide range of academic performance represented by being a 'degree-holder'. [0] https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1ZOLlnHJ2OHZN3TuaVXkyMulp67FO4DtV https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1ZOLlnHJ2OHZN3TuaVXky...