WTFDude

Well said. I can agree to disagree.

Me419:

Assumption is a dangerous thing. :) If you've ever played an organized sport, your coach probably explained what happens when one "assumes."

When I state an opinion, I try to remember to put "in my opinion" or some other statement to the fact that it is my opinion. I do that not just for clarification, but also to be free from a claim of libel, etc.

When I cite data, if I have the time, I try to put the link to the data. So that those reading the comments can look at the data for themselves and form their own opinions.

Your opinion of both of us having come to the same conclusion is just that, your opinion. And one that I don't agree with.

I don't believe that we have at all. I didn't do any "lumping" or apples to oranges comparisons, or speculation about what the data said.

Instead, I questioned your data, your assumptions, your statements, etc.

And then when I presented data, I provided the links to the data sources and used data that would lend itself to valid comparison and evaluation.

As someone once said "There are lies, damn lies and statistics".

So, I try to find the core data and work from that. That's why the base pay scales specified by law are important. I, and most people here, know these are BASE PAY scales, and I've attempted to always refer to them as that.

I, and most other people here, also realize that both teachers and non-teachers get fringe benefits. Every company I've ever worked for provided health insurance (some better than others), and some form of retirement plan (usually a 401(k) with company match, often at more than the 12% retirement that you state teachers get), some even provided health club, childcare, and other benefits, etc.

So, unless you know what the overhead costs of those fringe benefits are for both compared numbers, they should be eliminated from the comparison in order to make a valid comparison.

It's disingenuous to make a comparison where one of a pair of compared numbers include them and one doesn't.

The only numbers that were presented in the discussion that was an apples to apples comparison without the inclusion of benefits on one side were those that I presented and provided links to.

Even the superintendent's report numbers did not specify whether the benefits were included in the "averages" provided. If they weren't, they should have been captured somewhere else in the report. I read the entire thing and didn't see a definite statement of where they were included, if at all.

There should have been at least a footnote in the report stating what is included in that number.

There is one set of data on teacher salaries that is just the salary and no other benefits that can be used and that is the base pay chart. Granted that doesn't allow for the inclusion of or direct comparison to "average" salary, it does give one a concrete idea, without assumptions, of what a teacher with a given degree level and set number of years of experience can expect to make as base salary. Some districts will pay more, some less, but the baseline pay scale is set by that chart and thus it serves as a good reference point.

As I stated earlier, most companies provide fringe benefits and comparisons of those benefits cannot often be objective because it depends on the perceived value of the benefit to the individual. For accounting purposes, companies put number values to the costs of those benefits, but the value to the actual employee is subjective.

Tie the subjective nature of the benefits packages to the disparate number of hours worked, etc. and the attempt to compare a teacher's salary to that of other professions is a significant challenge.

So, to try and eliminate as many of the subjective elements as possible, I refer to the base salary chart as set by law for the baseline. I obviously keep in mind that teachers. like most workers, get other benefits beyond their salaries.

Since the data providers on both sides of the comparison fail to place a benefits valuation, and even that would be subjective as to the actual value of the benefits to the individual, there's really no reliable way to place a consistent valuation on those benefits, and trying to include them in a salary comparison makes the comparison questionable at best.

Additionally, the inclusion of administrators' salaries in the averages would skew the average upward, etc.

Having said all of that, I disagree with your apparent position that teachers are well paid relative to other workers in Mississippi.

When I look at the base salary numbers, because those are the ONLY ones that have been presented in this discussion that we know are salary only numbers, I have to disagree with you.

All other discussion is subjective and thus "opinion."

So, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

WTFDude

I assume everything posted here or any message board is the posters opinion. Unless you state in your post, according to the Census Bureau......, it is a safe bet you are sharing your opinion. Sorry your scientific method did not bring you different results from my opinion and experience. Throwing insults only brings you down. Intelligent people also rely on experience to form opinions. At least my "BSing" was on point. What does in mean when you perform your scientific research and still come out on the short end of a discussion? It has been fun and I'm glad you made me support my opinion. That is what discussing topics is all about.

Yeah, after multiple postings and multiple people calling BS on your numbers you FINALLY stated that the $50,000 was your opinion. You certainly didn't start out that way and only admitted to it late into the conversation after your numbers had been questioned.

It's easy to try to get away with BSing and then later say "oh that was just my opinion".

You're right, you "do not have to have scientific research to have an opinion."

Anyone can have an opinion based on anything. That doesn't mean it's credible.

Intelligent people actually do base their opinions on logical research and data.

But you're obviously not a member of such a group. Sorry to attempt to hold you to a standard that you obviously can't meet.

My apologies for trying to actually get some facts out in the discussion because you know the old saying about "opinions."

WTFDude

LOL! I said the $50,000 was my opinion. I do not have to have scientific research to have an opinion.

If you want to compare a single teacher to the household averages, then yes the pay schdule has merit. But when you discussing thousands of teachers over a vast range of experience, you cannot point to a chart and say this is my number. Also the base pay schedule is just that, a base. Teachers earn more from district supplements (if any) and also earn more depending on how many hats they wear such as coaching, cheerleading sponsor, or band director. A base number simply can not be compared to averages.

My original statement was:

"Teachers are on average paid better than the average Mississippian. I'm not saying they are paid to much or too little. Contracts are for 187 days but how many jobs can you make 50,000 (there are alot of teachers would make 50,000) for only working 187 days?"

All the facts you helped uncover support my original opinion stated above. What was wrong about my original opinion?

Just because the numbers did not work out the way you wanted them to does not mean I have no credibility. I used my past experience to form my opinion. Experience is another thing that leads to credibility.

Just so others reading this thread will know, I "skewed" the Bible to say that homosexuality is a sin. I guess where I live, the majority "skew" the Bible as well.

Well, it was hard to do, but hopefully at least we were able to get some meaningful numbers from you. Or at least get you to acknowledge some valid numbers.

For the record, it was you who put your "opinion" out as fact.

It was you who was using unofficial, unsubstantiated data to support your "opinion". (BTW, here's a newsflash for you, just because its on a website doesn't mean it's true.)

When discussing things that are set by law, why not use the data specified in the law? Oh! Because that wouldn't support your argument, huh?

It's much more convenient to cite "averages" and to "lump" things together inconsistently.

It was you who was making apples to oranges comparisons (household to individual, benefits included to benefits not included, etc.)

It was you who used USDA data instead of Census data (which pretty much every other governmental data uses) without knowing/stating their source of the data and/or how it was calculated/modified from the data source.

And, as I said previously, it was your argument that seemed to be all about teachers being paid well enough or overpaid in the state of Mississippi as compared to others. You didn't come out and say it overtly, perhaps because even you are smart enough to realize you'd get flamed for doing so, so you tried to subtly do it through your flawed argument.

BTW, if you really do have a spouse who is a teacher, do you really think that "on average", since you're so in love with averages, the individual worker puts in as many hours as the average teacher? There's another area of inequity in trying to compare the two, huh? Yet another example of the lack of a realistic comparison in your argument.

Since you can't seem to figure it out for yourself, let me explain to you why the base pay schedule does have merit in this discussion. It has merit in the discussion because it states what the base salary is for a teacher with a given educational and experience level. It takes the ambiguity and opinion out of the discussion because it is the baseline used for all teachers' salaries in the state by law.

Silly me for thinking that the law doesn't matter.

The bottom line is that you've shown time and again that you'll skew things however you need to in order to try and win an argument. You did so with the Bible in another discussion, so, of course, you'll do so in a discussion such as this. If you'll distort your religion to win an argument, you'll certainly do so to win this one.

You have no credibility whatsoever. Because as even you stated, you form an opinion and then go searching for data to support it. An intelligent individual who actually wants to present valid information uses a logical, scientific method, by actually doing the data gathering FIRST and then formulating their hypothesis based on the data, not the other way around as you do.

Well, as someone smarter than I (see, unlike you, I actually admit that those people do exist) once said

"Never argue with idiots. They'll only bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

So, you win!!

WTFDude

First off, I used the data from USDA because it showed household income not man vs woman. Are you assuming every household includes a income earning man and woman? I think we both know that MS has a lot of single income households, regardless of their situation. Surely you don't think the average MS household makes $65,133. The Census Bureau (I'm proud you linked) shows the average MS Household income for 2008 to be $37,416 for a three year average. That number is pretty close to the USDA number of $37,818.

My estimate of $50,000 was just that, my estimate, my opinion. I did not get it from a website I was going by past experience. A teacher with an average salary of 42,765.70 gets a PERS contribution of 5,131.88 which brings the total to $47,897.58, which does not include health insurance which we now know that unless you were hired in the last 3 years, is paid by the district. My estimate of $50,000 was pretty close to $47,898 (without health insurance).

The base pay chart you keep referring to has no place in this discussion. You cannot consider base pay in a discussion of averages unless you can tell me how many teachers are in each level of base pay so we can calculate an average.

I'm sure that the household income of $37,818 does not contain fringes. So compare average household income of $37,818 to average teacher of $42,766. There no fringe vs no fringe. You happy?

Let me recap for you,

The $50,000 was MY estimate, with fringes, before doing any research. After research, my estimate was fairly close even without medical insurance.

Your base pay chart means absolutely nothing when trying to arrive at an average without accurate numbers of teachers per pay grade.

The USDA site was within $402 of your Census site for household income. Somewhere in this discussion, you got lost and started comparing household income vs male income. There are a lot of single woman households in Mississippi. If you want to be accurate, please compare apples to apples.

One can assume based on the actual averages that the average teacher makes more, without fringe, than the average MS household without fringe.

NO WHERE did I say teachers are overpaid nor was that my intention. As stated before, I am married to a teacher, and I wish my wife made more money. She deserves more, they all do.

Let me repeat an earlier statement, MS trails the nation in earnings across all professions. But when comparing Mississippians to Mississippians, teachers make above average income for Mississippi. That is a fact based on official numbers comparing USDA, Census, and Superintendent provided numbers.

There WTFDude, argue all you want, the numbers support my side in this debate.

Me419: Well at least we now have you looking at data released from the state and not some random web site.

So, the numbers you're using now shows an average salary of $42,765.70 vs the $47,602 you were spouting earlier. So, that's a decrease of 10.15% just through the use of good data.

I do find it interesting that you continue to argue your point by saying that you've lumped in administrative positions, fringe benefits, etc.

Well, of course you'd say that because you don't have specific numbers for those benefits, and thus you can make them whatever you want them to be in order to get to your $50,000.

Then, of course, you use a median household income number from the USDA of $37,818, trying to make it look like a single teacher makes more than the entire average household and without stating whether that number includes the cost of the fringe benefits.

Just FYI, the Census Bureau says the average individual salaries for Mississippi are as follows: Men: $37,436 and Women: $27,697, with women's earnings as a percentage of men's earnings of 74%.

Why did you use numbers from the USDA and not the Census Bureau (Link to Census Bureau Income Information) which is the data the HHS uses to determine the poverty level?

It seems the only logical reason to use the USDA numbers over the Census Bureau numbers would be because they support your argument better by stating that the household income is $37,818 vs the Census numbers of $37,436 for an individual male.



It's clear that you're using the numbers that best suit your argument and making inaccurate comparisons just to support a statement that you made without doing your research beforehand.

So, I'll leave it to the readers to decide whether your argument holds water based on the data you used and the manner in which you've presented it just to win an argument.

So, let's recap. First you make a claim that "a lot of teachers" make $50,000 or more based on data from some unofficial website that shows the average teacher salary of $47,602.

You go on to say that they get free health care, which someone else quickly points out is wrong and that those teachers hired in the past two years have to pay a health care premium.

Then you make a false comparison of the teachers pay to a number from the USDA for the "AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD" (you put in all caps for emphasis) in Mississippi of $37,818, to give the impression that a single Mississippi teacher makes more than the entire average household in Mississippi.

Of course you use USDA numbers and not Census numbers, like the rest of the government uses to determine such levels, and don't state whether your numbers include benefits, etc.

Then you say that your $50,000 number included things like health insurance and retirement, etc. Yet you still didn't state whether your comparative number of $37,818 does.

Then when you're called on using the unofficial web site and you still argue stating that your numbers are "averages" and then try to argue that people reading this aren't smart enough to read a base pay chart that is prescribed by law by the state.

You finally start using official state numbers, by citing the superintendent's report where we find that the "averages" are actually $4,837 LESS than what you originally cited. But you try to make up for that by stating that you're including administrative positions and benefits in your numbers.

It's clear that winning an argument is more important to you than stating the truth, as you've used inaccurate numbers, invalid comparisons, and made general statements to allow yourself wiggle room to be able to skew the numbers in the favor of your argument. Your methodology of data gathering, evaluation of the data, and reporting of the findings does not stand up to the scrutiny of any widely accepted logical method and certainly doesn't even come close to the "scientific method", which I was taught in the 8th grade in my Mississippi public school education by teachers that, in my opinion, didn't make enough then or now.

It's my belief (not a fact), that the people who read these comments will be smart enough to discern who is being honest and presenting the facts for their own sake and who is just out to win an argument by skewing things to suit their position.

And lastly, I don't think that you'll find a majority of people anywhere in this state that feels that teachers are even adequately paid, much less over paid, as is the tone of your argument.

WTFDude

I decided to dig a little deeper. Per the 2010 Superintendent's Annual Report, page 66, the AVERAGE salary for instructional personnel for the 2008-2009 school year was $42,765.70. As I stated earlier, my number of $50,000 included fringe benefits such as health insurance(some teachers, not all) and retirement (12%) and I lumped administration into the total. My statement said "a lot" of teachers make over $50,000. Well guess what, in order the AVERAGE to be $42,800 without fringes, "a lot" of teachers make OVER $50,000. I know that a lot also make below $50,000 to make the AVERAGE work.

Here is the link to the Superintendents report

http://www.mde.k12.ms.us/superintendentsannualreport/report.pdf

Before you and junecleaver get on here and make yourself look silly by trying to agrue, at least do some research of your own.

WTFDude

I never said your numbers were averages. The numbers I presented, that you claim are bogus, ARE AVERAGES. Maybe I did not make myself clear, maybe you should read carefully before becoming a blowhard, but it was probably a combination of both.

I understand the teacher salary schedule. I am a former school auditor, so I have seen the schedule before along with the other numbers that make up the entire salary package for teachers.

I never said teachers were overpaid and I never said that the "vast majority" (as one poster said) made over 50,000. I did say that alot of teachers do make over 50,000 and that when compared to the AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD INCOME of $37,818, the AVERAGE TEACHER makes in line or more than the AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD in Mississippi.

We are behind the national AVERAGE in teacher pay. We are behind the AVERAGE pay in many professions. That is just where we live. I do wish we could strive to raise pay for everyone in MS.

I know that stats can be twisted to show whatever angle you want but until you produce numbers that refute what I posted, stop wasting keystrokes.

At least we agree that consolidation would help our education system.

Me419: Actually the numbers in the schedule I provided are NOT averages. That is the "2009-10 MAEP SALARY SCHEULDE" as stipulated by MS Code Section 37-19-7 that reads:

"EC. 37-19-7. Scale of teachers' salaries; Teacher Opportunity Program (TOP); experience increases; salary supplement for Master Teachers.

* * * This section shall be known and may be cited as the Mississippi "Teacher Opportunity Program (TOP)." The allowance in the minimum education program * * * for teachers' salaries in each county and separate school district shall be determined and paid in accordance with the scale for teachers' salaries as provided in this section. For teachers holding the following types of licenses or the equivalent as determined by the State Board of Education, and the following number of years of teaching experience, the scale shall be as follows:"

So, the pay scale link provided in my previous post, is, as I stated in my post, the base pay for Mississippi teachers.

And BTW, Me419, that "Salary Schedule" is not my opinion at all. It the base pay promulgated by law!

From MS Code Section 37-19-7 again:

"teachers' salaries in each county and separate school district shall be determined and paid in accordance with the scale for teachers' salaries as provided in this section."

So, it appears that you don't know the difference between "average pay" and a state promulgated base pay scale.

In other words, you don't know what you're talking about.

Thus you are the one spouting opinion, not facts, because the facts are what is written in the law and the official base pay schedule that I provided.

So, there's really no question who is correct here. Me419 uses data from some BS website and I use the data stipulated in the law.

junecleaver: Thanks. The poster spouting the BS is one of those who form their opinions first and then go looking for BS statistics to back up their opinions. Intelligent people go about things differently by doing their homework first, using good data, and then form their opinions. :)

DocJ, I very much second that! And you are correct...things are *never* done because they make sense, anymore. Quite the contrary actually. The nuttier and stupid an idea seems, the more likely it is to happen...especially in our government!

Mybe we could furlough or governor and legislators? Naw, that would make too much sense ...

WTFDude

If you notice the numbers are averages. Also, I clarified by saying you add the fringe benefits to see what the teachers are getting. It would be interesting to see the average experience level of teachers in MS. Where I live, there are a lot of older teachers. Teachers do not have to be up in age to reach the higher levels of experience. Many start teaching at 21 so the experience adds up quick for teachers who are not very old.

I said that I did not realize that newer teachers are paying their own health insurance. A lot of teachers are still receiving free health insurance, that is a true statement. I have not stuck my foot in my mouth at all. Just because you do not agree with the stats doesn't mean you are correct.

The link to the salary schedule is nice but you can't tell squat about the averages or the overall salary levels in the state by looking at that chart. Find something that refutes the stats I listed or at the very least find some stats that will backup your comments. Until you can produce something other than your opinion, you comments mean nothing.

I see numbers like these all the time and they do not appear to be unreasonable.

WTFDude - once again, thank you for calling BS when you see it. It needs to be pointed out that a teacher will ONLY make in excess of $50K after 19 years IF they have a doctoral degree!

Me419 seems well beyond clueless, as www.teacher-world.com has nothing to do with real world teacher salaries. This clown goes on a half-assed site that is basically all about advertising online universities.

Boy, oh boy. The gift of high intellect. It is not bestowed upon some of these folks who post on here.

Thanks, again, WTF. Always good to read your posts!

It seems to me that if you're going to make blanket statements about teachers' salaries, you should actually know what you're talking about BEFORE making such statements.

Otherwise, you stick your foot in your mouth and wind up having to shop websites for statistics that support the BS that you've already stated.

Since teacher salaries are set by law, it seems to me that the Mississippi Department of Education's site would have the most accurate info about teachers' base salaries in Mississippi.

So, it's clear that a BS statement was made about a lot of teachers in Mississippi making $50K, and then when the commenter was called on their BS they had to go "stat shopping" to find a site that supported their BS claim, rather than just admitting that they didn't know what they were talking about.

Here's a link to the actual salary schedule, see for yourself:

09-10 MAEP Salary Schedule PDF

Looking at the schedule, it seems that the earliest a teacher's base salary reaches $50K ($50,106 to be exact) is when they have 19 years experience!! I'd be willing to bet that the majority of teachers in Mississippi don't have 19 years experience.

One of my closest friends is a first year teacher and she doesn't make anywhere near $50K and she does have to pay for her health insurance. She's also a single mother with two school age children. So, even if her salary was $50K, it wouldn't be enough. She brings work home EVERY night and works part of the day both Saturdays and Sundays.

In my opinion, ANYONE who thinks Mississippi teachers are "well paid" are idiots. They'd be underpaid at twice their current salaries as far as I'm concerned.

As usual, our legislators are not smart enough to come up with savings in any way other than cutting a "citizen service". In this case, furloughing teachers.

They're not smart enough to figure out that 152 school districts in a state the size and population of Mississippi is ridiculous from any angle at which one looks at it.

They're not smart enough to figure out that fewer school districts would mean lower "overhead" and thus savings that could be better utilized IN THE CLASSROOM.

Someone else here said that we shouldn't care what the rest of the world thinks of Mississippi and its schools. That's one of the most idiotic statements I've ever read here. Obviously that person was educated in the Mississippi public school system. :)

There is a myriad (look it up, Einstein) of reasons why we should care about what the rest of the world thinks about Mississippi and its schools. Not the least of which is

the attraction of new businesses to the state. Our statewide unemployment is higher than the national average. So, we need new businesses to locate here.

So, if we want to stay last in pretty much everything, let's continue to have the "we don't care what the rest of the world thinks" attitude and we'll stay at the bottom.

The bottom line is that when you're the least successful at something, that means that everyone else is doing it BETTER than you, not worse. So, its time to get off your "high horse" and realize that what you're doing now isn't working.

Or you can keep up your unwarranted sense of superiority and stay at the bottom.

What's that definition of insanity again? :)

As a spouse of a teacher, I wish they made more. I was just trying to say that when compared to the rest of the state of Mississippi, teachers are not bad off. The median HOUSEHOLD income for the state in 2008 was $37,818 (USDA stats) compared to what that other website list $47,602 for a single teacher. I do not know how the teachers world website arrived at its averages but unless MDE released some stats we have no other way to compare. Teachers are underpaid when compared to the nation but in MS but isn't so bad. I know they work hard and put in long hours, I see it personally everyday. I just wish we could consolidate some school district to arrive at a better overall system.

Then the "teacher-world" website definitely doesn't reflect Mississippi teachers because I know for a *fact* that isn't what beginning teachers make in MS. And, how many years experience until this website considers you "average" (non-beginning) teacher?

Thanks for the research, Me419, but I'm afraid those stats aren't Mississippi stats :) Sure wish they were, though.

I just retired from an administrative position at a k - 8 school will 1100 hundred students. Close to 700 elementary and 400 6-8 students to be exact. My highest pay was $64,500. I worked very hard for that money. When you add sports and extracurricular activities to my regular day I spent many days working 14 to 16hours. I am now working in an administrative position in the city district office. Alot less stress and alot less money. I took an $8,000 pay cut. Oh, and by the way, when you retire, your insurance is no longer free. It cost a very hefty some. If you want a more accurate picture just check the salary scales in each district. Some districts only pay what is required over the state alotment.

The *vast majority* most definitely do NOT make $50,000. Not sure where that info came from, but it's waaaay off. A teacher may be making that close to retirement age, but not your average teacher. Of course, it all depends on what district you're in and the suppliment, but on the whole, no teacher gets proportionately paid for what all they actually do. I mean my goodness, they practically help raise our kids. The majority of our children's day is spent with their teacher. Talk about a major influence. They need to be well compensated. Sadly they are some of the first ones to feel the cuts of a state budget, and some of the last to get a raise when times are good (if/when those times ever come again).