CITY TEACHERS DRAW TOP PAY

Teachers in the Grand Rapids public school district are among the highest paid in the country.  The National Center for Policy Analysis surveyed teacher salaries in cities across the U.S., adjusted the salaries for local cost-of-living, and then ranked them for highest to lowest.

River City high school teachers came at the top with an adjusted average salary of $54,221 a year.  (Don't forget, folks, that a teacher puts in only about 60% of the hours the typical working stiff does every year, which makes that salary the equivalent of $90K for a full-time job.  Plus that doesn't include healthcare and pension benefits.)  Local elementary school teachers did even better at $55,568 a year, even though they were eclipsed by Pittsburgh teachers for the top spot.  Even without the cost-of-living adjustment, salaries for both groups still ranged in the low fifties.

So when GRPS Superintendent Bleke and the school board tell you the system has to go into receivership because there are no more cuts to be made, keep these fat salaries in mind.

Comments

[Mike]

Interesting report. Is there a link available to the actual study? I'm curious about how the adjusted average is calculated.

[The Executive Director]

Hi, Mike.

You can find the study at this url, http://ncpa.org/newdpd/index.php. The link in the artile will also take you there.

Regards,
Bill Tingley
Executive Director

[Mark Williams]

Interesting, but as the husband of one of those over-paid elementary teachers, let me ask that you please remember that nearly all teachers report to work early (mine shows up at 7 a.m. though her school starts its day shortly after 8) and stay late (my wife's school turns the kids loose at 3:10 but she doesn't usually get home until after 5:30). Further, most teachers manage to put in another half-shift or so after supper, grading papers. All of this is unremunerated work. I am sure that my wife would be happy to have her class day restructured so that she could do the paperwork during the day and not in the evening, when most regular folks have nodded off in their easy chairs in front of the TV. But that would cost big bucks; far better for the school systems to expect from their teachers what mill workers used to call a "stretch out".

[J. Minore]

Mid fifties is too high! Why don't we just pay babysitting wages to teachers?

Let's see, $5 per hour per child, times 20 children, times 5 hours a day, times 180 days of work.

That should be more reasonable. Do the calculation and...

$90,000??

So put it in perspective. $54,000 a year is about $3 per hour per child. A bargain. What we really need is not to belly ache about teacher salaries and instead make some hard decisions about consolidating small districts, closing aging and underutilized buildings and provide the funding needed to keep our classrooms well stocked, our teachers well trained and our schools turning out well educated pupils.

How about a few less tax cuts and instead provide businesses with employees educated to world class standards by a top notch school system?

[The Executive Director]

Hello, Mark.

Good to hear from you again.

It is decent of you to defend your wife's honor. However, it remains a simple fact that public school teachers are well-compensated by the taxpayers. I suspect that is why your wife has not quit her job.

Noting that public school teachers draw "fat" paychecks does not mean they don't do a good job. I think a lot of them do (although there are also a lot of hacks filling those slots). I have also written in the past that the fundamental problem in education are parents who don't motivate their children to excel. (See "The Pig in the Python" article.) In other words, I don't believe teachers can solve the root cause of the rot in public education. That is also why I don't believe paying them more and more will do any good.

Regards,
Bill

[The Executive Director]

J. Minore,

>>How about a few less tax cuts and instead provide businesses with employees educated to world class standards by a top notch school system?<<

That's always the answer, isn't it? The taxpayers should pay more to get the school system they were promised the last time tax were increased.

Regards,
Bill Tingley
Executive Director, L.A.W.

[J. Minore]

Bill,

Not exactly my point. I would just prefer that we not engage in revenue giveaways designed to create jobs that don't and then complain that our system doesn't have enough money.

If we had not given away so many tax breaks, to businesses and individuals, over the last 10 years or so (and look where it has gotten us - what did you do with your $50 per year income tax break?) we would not be struggling as a state to provide the promised funding to K-12 and/or higher ed.

We don't have to throw more and more money at the problem, but we also shouldn't have to cut people off Medicaid in order to fund our elementary schools.

J.