This is one of many reasons that teachers and everyone else should be paid according to merit. You'll see the quality of teaching go way up.

Many teachers are underpaid. Meaning that these teachers could be asking for more of what they value and getting it, in a free market economy. But many teachers, and administrators, are overpaid. It all depends on the individual. It is not a some collective solution.

Teachers are not underpaid?
Damn it, doesn't anyone tell the truth anymore?
Underpaid teachers are as often talked about as Trump's Porno affair.

Where's Slug Taggert when you need her? She'd offer excellent insight to this topic.

In any other career, the interview conversation will be something like "how many days of vacation per year are provided?" - in teaching it is "how many days a year do I have to work?"

Teachers on average will work 171.5 days per year. Their compensation plus their pensions - normally 30% of the salary cost... it is very generous for less than 6 months of work each year.

Not sure that we need to learn how to learn. I think its wired into us from birth. Kids today are taught how NOT to learn in public schooles. Leave them alone and the desire to learn takes over. You learn things that you feel the need to learn.

I agree to a point. Each individual is different. Each individual develops different interests and values. We still need teachers/educators to teach the basics, especially how to learn. After that is done, the world and the web is an open book. Or should I say ebook.

Teachers get paid what it costs to hire and keep them. No more; no less. I am surprised that there are so many teachers working in public education. It sounds like a rotten job dealing all day with students who arent interested, and bosses who force you to adhere to strict rules. It must be that in fact thats its a cushy job with a lot of perks and time off and benefits.

If it was up to me, I would get rid of public education in its entirety, along with the taxes that fund it. Let the parents choose how to let their children learn what they need to survive. I bet they do a better job.

I really wonder about the need for education as its done now. The premise behind "education" seems to be to ram down the throats of generally uninterested students a pre programmed set of "knowledge", rather than provide an atmosphere in which a student learns what he/she WANTS to learn at the time. The whole concept of "teaching" I think is wrong. The emphasis should be on encouraging "learning"- like little kids do as they grow up.

Personally, I never had YOUTUBE when I was growing up. That said, I have learned so much more from YOUTUBE in the past 5 years or so, and at the pace I wanted to learn. I learned C++ programming, wireless power transmission, and many other things which have let me sell over a million dollars of products into the marketplace- and all from YOUTUBE. I learned those things at the time I learned them because I WANTED to understand them, not because someone TAUGHT me.

If I had a kid today, I would NOT send them to public school, but would find ways to help THEM learn what they are interested in.

I think your first sentence should have read, “Government funded education is a racket.”
We need good educators. But the incentives for good educators in this racket, is not good.

Education is a racket. Much promised, very little delivered. The thing no one ever points out to these teachers is that none of them are in bonded servitude. If they think they are poorly treated, they should quit and take their fabulous skills and go in to the private sector......where results are measured!

Actually, the reason rural schools underperform is most often because there is no local competition from charter or private schools. The local school boards are often the biggest hurdle to establishing a charter school, pressured by teachers' unions to block requests from parents for such schools.

Oklahoma has a "back door" method to allow wanted charter schools. If the local board refuses to grant a charter, the parents can petition the state education agency for approval. One county recently succeeded in getting a charter school permit from the state, after the local board and teachers' union opposed it.

It isn't that rural folk are anti-intellectual so much as the fact that they lack influence with government centers where the money decisions are made. Oklahoma should be applauded for giving them the chance to have an even stake in the game.

The Government Education Industrial Complex loves the argument to be about government school funding in general and teacher pay specifically. Takes the focus off the dismal school performance metrics.

So the argument on teacher pay leads to one of two conclusions. Either the current teachers are purposely under performing until they are paid more OR the current teachers will be replaced with better teachers (from somewhere.) The GEIC proponents will never acknowledge either conclusion.

As a teacher I am a bit biased on this subject and would certainly prefer higher wages.

With that said I accept the wages offered knowing full well what I will be bringing home. If for some reason I don't find the wage acceptable I am free to move to another industry.

Honestly, the greatest benefit that could and I believe should be offered would be for the system to make a teachers student loan payments while the teacher is teaching. This would also attract better people (at least as long as those loans are over their heads) to the profession as many cannot afford to be teachers and pay their loans.

In the lower photograph of the article, me dino is very amused by the pay protest sign that states, "Our students deserve better."
Is that teacher implying that she (or is that a long-haired he) will teach better if paid better?
That teacher must have tenure. If me dino ran a board of education of a college, methinks I'd want to fire teacher who would wave a sign like that.

end the teacher/govt monopoly...let the free market decide teacher pay...

I agree that when parents are involved in the schools, that the students do better. I also believe that if there were more choice like private or charter schools and vouchers would pay for the students, the parents could move to better schools. I accept that if there are disciplinary issues that the students should be forced out and find a new school.

Teachers are continuing to ask for more pay for only working less than full time. It may be an admiral job to teach our children, but if they want a full time salary, they need to work full time. Currently they get school vacations, summers off, MEA during the school year, and want full time salary. We need to end the summer vacation time off so our children can catch up.

If there is an option to provide free college education, then we only extend the problem from High School levels where we need to pay again to teach the same thing to them again and again. Only when the student has some skin in the game and need to pay for it themselves will they value the education that the are getting.

Money can not solve the problems in education. And the problem with many initiatives that seek to boost teacher pay is that the money ends up either in the pockets of the teachers' unions or merely inflating administrators' pay. This has happened the last two times in my state, and it has made a lot of people upset - at least the ones who pay taxes and care.

The biggest problem with today's schools is a lack of student discipline - which is tied directly back to parental involvement, which studies repeatedly demonstrate is the single biggest determining factor in educational success. (It is the largest factor in explaining why Utah has the highest return on education dollars spent.)

Between the free meals and the reprimands to teachers who attempt to rein in bad behavior, schools have become publicly funded daycares. My mother-in-law taught Kindergarten until health issues forced her retirement. All it takes is one bad apple to disrupt things for all other students and she had plenty of stories about the bad apples. The problem is that it was nearly impossible to get the rowdy ones kicked out of the school. And because the teachers aren't allowed to discipline the students (which is what the students need), the problematic ones just bounce around from class to class and school to school.

This can all be solved by allowing schools to choose who they are going to allow as students. My son's charter high school does it and there is a one-strike policy: if the student gets a D in class, they're gone and can never come back. Same thing for disciplinary issues: you disrupt class seriously and you are gone.

The sooner we stop treating education like a mandatory public option, the sooner parents will be forced to either take an interest in both their own and their childrens' lives. Only then will education in this nation improve.

we should elect bernie as pres then EVERYBODYS future would be preserved.

That happens of necessrity because government improperly co-opts personal decisions.

As for welfare, while I can see the Rawlesian argument, it remains that there are other agencies in society. During Hurricane Sandy, the Baptist Men made one million sandwiches (truly), which they delivered to the Salvation Army for distribution to people in Red Cross shelters. Those are all supported with voluntary contribuitions. I don't know about where you live, but here one of the Salvation Army stores is dedicated to reselling donated computers and peripherals.

She would have said, "Income tax collector or just
tax collector," Other examples might include approving business mergers, or enforcing religious doctrine.

"the work is something that no one should do"
What's an example of this?

This is one huge problem of having the gov't control a sector of the economy. Gov't has real things to do, but it gets bogged down in questions over whether schools should offer algebra to kids under 13, how many mammograms we should pay for, under what level of risk to the mother do we pay for abortion, and which foods are nutritious enough for nutrition programs. I actually agree with nutrition programs that help the poor buy food, but every time gov't gets involved in something one cost is we end up in public debate about personal decisions.

When asked if you should work for the government or work in a government-controlled market, Ayn Rand offered this standard. If the work is a product or service that would be offered in the free market but was co-opted by the government, then it is moral to pursue such a career. On the other hand, if the work is something that no one should do, then doing it for the state is wrong. Teaching is a moral profession. It has just been co-opted by the government at all levels from the township board of education to the federal agency of education.

If, through the political processes of elections, etc., you decide that teachers deserve the "average" wage (however defined), then you cannot complain when you get only "average" teachers who provide your children with an "average" outcome.

In point of fact, many people choose where to live based on the achievements of the school district in which they buy (or rent) their home. Those districts tend to excel and continue to excel.

In areas, neighborhoods, cities, states where people do not care, they get the result of that choice, also.

One aside: I have been a judge at our regional science fairs for seven consecutive years. My experience only underscores what I learned some years before elsewhere: it does not matter how much money per student is invested, but whether the parents have a strong interaction (good PTA or whatever) with the school. If the parents care, the kids do well. I see this year after year as the Jewish and Muslim kids from Austin's private schools out-perform the kids from small towns in the surrounding counties. That rural anti-intellectual tradition is common here in the Gulch where it is an easy win to put down liberal snowflake social justice warriors. We place laurels on the heads of engineers because they are "practical" i.e., not intellectual.

Another way to look at this is by the prices offered by the buyers of the actual service offered. (All so-called "goods" are just services. You could build your own car or refrigerator, but you pay for the service of having one made for you.)

Now, the free market theory is that the buyer is informed. I want to avoid much of that false argument because I believe that there is no such thing as "insider trading." All buyers think that they have special knowledge. So, too, with public schools. The people who set the wages do not actually teach and they do not actually shop for educated partners (employees, etc.). When you buy a car or a refrigerator, you might not actually know much, but we accept that you know what you want.

With education, that is not the case. "We" don't know what "we" want because "we" are an anonymous personification called "the public."

You can demand that kids today should know algebra and American history. But how do you shop for that? It is not like going to a couple of appliance stores looking at fridges or visiting car lots and kicking tires. My daughter broke up with a guy because they both wanted cars at the same time; and she read Consumer Reports while he asked his friends what they were buying. They broke up over their different information models, but, again, we do not have that with education. People here complain about "public education" but if you put the words "refrigerator" or "automobile" in there, you see the weaknesses.

Wherever you live, you can choose the Chevy Volt or Dodge Ram, a Mercedes or a Hyundai or whatever. But we do not have that with education. There is no differentiated market competition available across geographies. Whatever competing theories of education may exist are not branded and sold that way. (Montessori is an exception, though it is abused.)

Asking whether teachers are paid too much or not enough would make no sense if it were like asking if refrigerators cost too much or not enough.