September 02, 2005
Was it right to publish teacher salaries?

My earlier post with links to a database of salaries for public school teachers and other employees has generated a fair amount of discussion, including the question: “What the heck are you people posting these peoples salaries for??? Are you sick?”

Sick? No. But otherwise it’s a fair question that has been posed more politely by others, and deserves an answer.

First, public school teachers are public employees. Their salaries are paid by you and me and every other taxpayer in this state. It is not wrong for us to know what those salaries are. To the contrary: It’s good for us to know since that information allows us to make wise decisions about issues that will impact those salaries.

Second, it is accepted almost without question today that “teachers are underpaid.” Yet for most people this belief doesn’t stem from knowing the facts, but from hearing the claim so often repeated. The facts may cause us to question that belief, or they may strengthen it in our minds. Either way, we shouldn’t hide them.

Third, individual teachers have an important job. So important, in fact, that we must be able to measure the outcome of their work and judge the value of our investment in them. No one is suggesting you can put a price tag on a teacher’s love for her students, but love must be accompanied by a demonstrated ability to impart measurable knowledge and skills to those students. Teacher salaries should reflect that ability. We won’t know if they do until we know what they are.

Teachers have every right to make the case for higher salaries. We all have that right no matter what our chosen career. But the case should be made openly and honestly, with full facts disclosed to the people who must decide whether or not to trade their hard-earned dollars for our services.

Personally, I think there are a lot of excellent teachers out there who could command a higher salary if they weren’t locked into a union-brokered salary grid that says all teachers should be paid the same regardless of how well they do their jobs, how much demand exists for their subject matter, and how difficult the environment is in which they choose to work.

I also think there are poor teachers out there who shouldn’t be in our classrooms at all.

And I think it’s ok to say those things out loud.

Posted by Marsha Michaelis at September 02, 2005 05:38 PM | Email This
Comments
1. Very good analysis. I come from a family full of teachers, but I've pretty much had it with their attempts to cloud or outright dismiss the truth, and we all need to start actually doing something about teacher strikes - actual or threatened. These strikes are clearly illegal.

Posted by: Nick Ferraiolo on September 2, 2005 06:06 PM
2. Teacher’s Unions are “campaigning” in the press for higher wages. They are trying to convince the public that they are under paid and deserve more. How can the public know what the right answer is without salary information? To make an informed decision, you need this information. If teachers’ unions have the right to strike, then the public has the right to this detailed information.

Posted by: Island Republican on September 2, 2005 06:24 PM
3. Marsha,

I appreciate your clarification and I may not have stated my point of view nicely. But you cannot witch hunt individual teachers that YOU or anyone else do not feel are fit to teach in our public schools. You must consider all the external factors and demographics that go along with that. And frankly, that wasn't the point of the subject you posted that information for. It was about the "illegal" strike. There are quite a few people upset with your post and some consider it an abuse of public information. Most folks wouldn't go looking for salary information such as this without an agenda. Yours appears to be union busting. Not only that, the data you published included every bus driver, mechanic, janitor, teachers aid in those districts. And if you were to really be seeing things clearly, you would understand that if it wasn't for the teachers union, teacher pay would be far lower. We could all argue that the unions hold back the REALLY good teachers as far as pay is concerned. But consider the strides that have been made in Washington for teachers with Apple Awards and other incentives. I know several of them. In the end, had it not been for the unions, we would not have the quality AND quantity of teachers we have today to educate our children. Should the system be changed? Maybe. But that should be your discussion point and you should stick to the focus of your talking points. Simply publishing the salaries of your district in question would have sufficed. Public information obviously can be abused. You are proof. If you have an agenda, of which I am sure, state it out front instead of giving us this blanket of wish-wash as any responsible adult would... and probably learned from a teacher.

Posted by: Jimmy on September 2, 2005 06:27 PM
4. I can't let this go without answering it...


But you cannot witch hunt individual teachers that YOU or anyone else do not feel are fit to teach in our public schools.


That isn't a witch hunt. It's kind of ironic that you're lecturing Marsha about responsible speech and your statement is totally off the wall. Anyone can reasonably expect to have a respectful dialogue, but that statement isn't respectful or reasonable. We're just asking for accountability...after all, we are paying the bills.


In the end, had it not been for the unions, we would not have the quality AND quantity of teachers we have today to educate our children.


We all agree on that point. We do not agree on whether it's a good thing.

Posted by: South County on September 2, 2005 06:39 PM
5. Off the wall? Then what was the point of posting the material with the names? Forethought would have driven a responsible person to delete the un-needed data. Not off the wall at all. If you want accountability look to the school board itself which is the governing body of those districts. That is where we in our district can voice our issues over individual teachers.

Your second point is open to debate. I have issues with unions but not across the board.

Posted by: jimmy on September 2, 2005 06:51 PM
6. Marsha:

Thanks for the additional insight into your motivation and ethical rationalization of making some fairly personal information about these good folks available for public consumption.

I think it would be a wonderful gesture of empathy for their obvious concerns and willingness to show that you're willing to put your own money where your mouth is by posting your own 2004 Federal Income Tax filings.

I look forward to reviewing it.

Posted by: Unkl Witz on September 2, 2005 07:24 PM
7. jimmy,
This information is public record. Anyone can request this at any time. All this link did was make it very easy for me to find. I'm not going to "use" this information and go on a "witch hunt."
I'm going to use this information to tell these teachers in this county to stop complaining about their low pay.

Posted by: cc on September 2, 2005 07:31 PM
8. Oh good lord.

We shouldn't know how much public servants are paid? Get the F out of here. Go to www.dfas.mil and you can account for every cent of every military member's income, but you don't see the military going to cover all that up now do you?

The public has EVERY right and the RESPONSIBILITY to know these things before they go make bleeding-heart election decisions that take money out of the public coffers (and therefore out of YOUR pockets).

Now, somebody said something about the "quality AND quantity" of teachers in Washington? Sounds like Soviet propaganda to me.

Posted by: Aaron on September 2, 2005 07:56 PM
9. The school district's budget is supposed to display personal compensation data. If each position isn't displayed in the budget itself (which would be likely in anything other than a small district), the data must be provided by the district upon request.

Is the data base made available online by EFF WA any different from what would be provided to any person on request?

Posted by: Micajah on September 2, 2005 07:59 PM
10. Unk...don't you see the difference? Marsha has no obligation to let you or others know her salary. Public school teachers are paid from public funds. Are you? Is Marsha?

And no, I'm not going to tell you how much I earn because I work for one of those evil corporation "thingies". I'm not a public servant...teachers are.

Posted by: MattMan on September 2, 2005 08:01 PM
11. It is about ethics. That is all.

Posted by: jimmy on September 2, 2005 08:24 PM
12. If it's September, there will be a teachers strike in Washington.

We pay their salaries.

We are entitled to know if their salaries are commensurate with their work product.

If they can whine, complain and hold our childrens education/school year hostage because they feel they are underpaid then we are entitled to judge whether or not that is true and to do that we need all the facts.

Keep holding them accountable, Marsha, in every way, shape and form you can find. Expose their hypocrisy and debunk their lies.

The very best thing that could happen to public education is to get the unions and the feds OUT of our childrens education!

Posted by: Cheryl on September 2, 2005 08:36 PM
13. And by the way CC. Teachers are NOT overpaid. It is in direct reflection to the dues those have who have invested in the career to what they are paid. There are the good, better and the bad. But if you want the best, be ready to pay for them.

And Aaron, if you really believe that I suggest you try educating your child (if you have found a mate) in a communist (or former) country. Big wake up call there buddy. If you think ID is a good idea, what until you get a load of what they have to offer.

Now that is not to say that former communist countries have not made things better but imagine living and learing in the former.

Read my post to Marsha and you understand where I am coming from. This is a matter of ethics that were not applied. Yes, the info was public. What you do with it from there on has the potential to lack objectivity. As was this case.

Posted by: jimmy on September 2, 2005 08:45 PM
14. But then, if I stay here I have to contend with the "true believers" of which there is no talking sense too. And obviously, from my last posts grammer, I am far too tired too.

You all have a great night. I am pooped!!! Maybe some other subject will get me all fired up someday :)

bless....

Jimmy

Posted by: jimmy on September 2, 2005 08:55 PM
15. Seems to me that if you're paid by taxpayers, people have the right to know how their money is being spent. How fair is it to keep taxpayers in the dark about that??

Posted by: Michele on September 2, 2005 10:05 PM
16. Jimmy must have been taught by one of them high paid Washington English teachers...

Posted by: Organization Man on September 2, 2005 10:15 PM
17. Jimmy has brought up a good point. The last thing the union teachers want is visibility. They want to keep us in the dark about what is really going on in the classrooms and who is getting paid what for real. The unions can't operate with a well-informed and rational electorate. They rely on us being blinded by misinformation and emotion.

Jimmy, welcome to the new world. We here believe that government is the SERVANT of the people, and not its master. We threw off the chains of abusive, corrupt government hundreds of years ago, and we'll keep throwing them off every time we feel oppressed in the slightest. You may think you are doing us a favor by treating us like sheeple, but the minute you think you have some control over us, you have been corrupted and no longer deserve any active role in our government.

That means, in plain English, that teachers and every other paid employee of the government, and every elected or appointed official, are the SERVANT OF THE PEOPLE. They have no right to raise their hand against the people. They have no right to try and misinform them or hide under the cover of shadows and darkness. No, servants who do this are discovered, punished, and expelled.

I hope every teacher feels this impressed upon their mind. Those parents that walk in their classroom are the board of directors and CEO of the operation. Those folks who don't have children in the schools but who pay taxes nonetheless are equally so.

Anyone that acts against public disclosure and against public accountability should be thrown away in the slammer. I say this because you would say the same thing if President Bush tried to cover up what is happening in the White House beyond what is necessary to prosecute a war. I say this because in our own state constitution it is encoded that government is accountable to the people and the people demand that government be open and honest about its dealings.

Go ahead and say that government shouldn't be open and honest and fair, but if you move one finger to make it happen, I hope you end up in front of a judge (elected by the people) and a jury of 12 people. I hope your trial is broadcast and published into the public records. I hope every word that falls out of your mouth at that trial is transcribed to be preserved eternally. I would love to see you defend the supposed right of the government to pull the wool over the eyes of the people.

Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on September 2, 2005 10:40 PM
18. Stefan;

I am glad you brought this topic up because I personally was questioning your actions on the other thread.

My question to you would be, how difficult would it have been for you or EFF to alter the list so that the names where replaced with initials or only job titles and school appeared, or whatever combo there of???

Most of the teachers on that list did not threaten to strike. Most of them have not run around complaining about how much they make. Even if it is public into, I just still wonder if another way existed to make the point without comprimising the innocent.

That being said, I did look up several of my former teachers. Some of them deserve to make 10 times what they are making, some deserve to make 1/10 as much.

We need to stop rewarding longevity and start rewarding productivity.

I am glad to hear that you did at least struggle slightly with this and thought about it before doing it. That is what seperates you from Goldy, who is threatening to out a rumored closeted homosexual legislator just to help his cause.

Posted by: T.J. on September 2, 2005 10:49 PM
19. On the salary of teachers, I have long felt that teachers are grossly UNDERPAID. Yes, folks, I do.

Why are they underpaid? You have to look at it this way. Those who decide to be governed by a certain set of rules expect the natural result of those rules. Those who follow the rule that "the truth will set you free" accordingly pursue the truth and accordingly become free.

We already know the secret to obtaining a maximum price for goods or services. It is called capitalism. The way this system works is very well understood. People work according to their will and the will of their employer. They are paid what they are willing to be paid and what the employer is willing to pay. If you live under these rules, you get paid a lot of money. All free-market employees end up becoming well-paid. Why? Because employees in this system seek to maximize their value to their employer. And the also seek to find new potential employers who are willing to pay more.

Those who live under the false idea that they deserve a job or they deserve a certain level of pay or they deserve a certain level of security independent of their value to their employer end up getting paid much less. Why? They do not end up becoming more valuable to their employer. Their employer ends up being bled dry by them. Eventually, the employer can no longer employ them. This is the union mindset. It is wrong and destructive. Exaggerated, this is the same mindset of socialist and communist nations, and we know what happens to these countries.

If teachers saw their only chance to higher pay in maximizing their value, then they would be pursuing those activities that would maximize their values. As it is, they are not. They are instead pursuing goals and certificates that aren't the most effective ways of maximizing their value. They do this because of the financial rewards. Will they necessarily become a better teacher because they get a PhD? No. But they do it anyway.

So they end up becoming sub-par on the whole. There is also another problem. We cannot pay teachers what they are worth. If we find an extremely valuable teacher, we can't grant them a pay raise simply because they are worth it and others are willing to pay more. No, we have to pay them much less. And we can't cut or reduce the salaries of those who are worth less than their paycheck.

The minute teachers throw off the union and its perverted concepts of how the labor market really works, and the sooner they adopt free market principles, the faster we will have higher-paid, better-quality teachers. It will happen almost overnight.

Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on September 2, 2005 10:52 PM
20. Seems the real gripe isn't that 'good' teachers are being paid too much or too little. But that 'bad' teachers, or let me be PC 'performance challenged' teachers are being paid more than they are worth. The other real problem seems to be the Strikes, not the wages they are being paid. I don't care if we pay the good teachers double, as long as they can't strike. Can you imagine the kind of competion we would have when there was a job opening? Summers off and a wage between $70K and $100K. Might even get me to reconsider.

The catch is that we have to be able to cut out the dead wood. Fear of litigation is the problem with firing the poor performers. I know of situations where school districts have had the support of the union and still did not fire the teacher for fear of a lawsuit.

Solution: Unions-teachers option to join, hiring/firing at will of school district, legislature needs to pass a bill protecting school districts from litigation(to a point), give supervisors the ability to nominate performance bonuses, no more illegal strikes.

Posted by: CommonSense Coug on September 2, 2005 11:01 PM
21. Hey Jimmy, this may come as a shock to you but I live overseas in Kyrgyzstan (former Soviet republic) and my wife is from here. Let me tell you a little bit about soviet leadership, because while the names may have changed, most of the faces and the way business is conducted around here is the same.

That being said, we had a corrupt election and you know what happened? The people revolted and dissolved the government. We had a transitional government after a few days which was finally voted on and finished being reinstated as of yesterday (with the appointment of Felix Kulov as Prime Minister). While things are gradually moving towards more economic freedom and development, it is a landlocked country with mostly textile, agricultural, hydroelectric, and mining (gold) industries.

You want to know what happens when you keep people in the dark about what their public MASTERS are doing? Come on over. I'll save some room at my house for you. You can see the effects on people's live and mindsets first hand.

Posted by: Aaron on September 2, 2005 11:40 PM
22. Sorry... they are grossly OVERPAID.

How are our results in the WASL? How our dropout rate?

In prior posts, I've shown were teachers are incredibly high paid for their part time job.

And now, they threaten an illegal strike?

What about the ethics of THAT?

I have no sympathy for teachers. They work 182 days a year making between 200 to 400 PER DAY.

That's exceptionally well paid in my book. These clowns KNEW what they were going to make when they made the decision to become teachers. If it isn't enough... then they need to quit.

But I am SICK of their whining!

Posted by: Who.... me? on September 3, 2005 12:19 AM
23. Who....me?

One, I agree with you on the whining. It needs to stop.

Two, since when does the fact that you took a job eliminate your right to ask for more money?
Answer me honestly here, have you EVER asked for a raise? Why shouldn't teachers be able to feel underpaid and ask for a raise like everyone else?

Three, I don't think you've shown anything about teacher's pay. You've made many claims, most of which have been rebutted in my observation.

Posted by: Calvin A on September 3, 2005 07:51 AM
24. Marsha, I agree with Michele on this.Maybe they need to call 1-800-waaaaaah!I too can't stomach the whinning!!

Posted by: Laurie on September 3, 2005 08:08 AM
25. Your statement "it is accepted almost without question today that “teachers are underpaid.” Yet for most people this belief doesn’t stem from knowing the facts, but from hearing the claim so often repeated. " Is so, so true.

A recently retired Snoco Superintendent showed me that his highest paid teacher's W-2 had a bigger number on it than his did, even though the teacher worked a 180 day contract, and he worked 260 days. That is the data they don't want you to see.

The new reality is what folks believe, and they believe this. My folks were both teachers, and I spent time on the faculty at WSU. Also, 13 years as a school board member. Only when we examine the WHOLE compensation scheme, equate it to the hours worked, will we see how well teachers are paid, save those in the very lower reaches of the salary schedule, who ARE underpaid.

That is the difficulty of attracting the best and brightest, low starting pay. Where else, for the same time commitment and output, is the most senior person paid over twice the least senior? Show me one other union pay scale where this disparity exists!

Teachers say they work a lot, and maybe so, but why will they sit across the bargaining table, and try to bargain for a 6 hour work day, instead of 7, when they claim to work 10?

Why do they resist going "full time", 2080 hours a year, less vacations, if it is a full time job as they claim?

Why do they discredit anyone who attempts to point this out?

If the sheeples only knew, and rejected the pabulum fed them by the minions of Satan running the WEA.

Posted by: The Geezer on September 3, 2005 08:17 AM
26. FOund it illuminating, interesting, and the names put a good perspective on the relative values in the salary column.

For instance, several of my teachers in their 23rd year of teaching make a liveable wage, particularly in light of the light number of workdays they have contracted to provide. They will do well in their upcoming retirement, of that I am sure.

Having said that, they did so well that I learned enough to earn double their salaries without having to ever incur a college loan, attend continuing education, or join a union. So, in fact, they did me a service in helping me avoid the costly mistakes they made.

For that, I will always appreciate them.

For that, I say continue their salary growth pattern of the past 30 years. They bought into the program and into the power structure that brought them these wages, and they must accept the consequences. Their noble, martyr-like statements for their purpose 'for the kids' notwithstanding, they chose this path and the resultant results.

:)

Posted by: potshot on September 3, 2005 09:02 AM
27. Apperantly I didn't make myself clear on the union issue. I am not a huge proponent of unions. There are some things I like, such as the ability to protect workers from corporate greed. But there are things I don't, such as the system of seniority which holds back true achievers and rewards incompetance. Drives me nuts and I see it all the time working with the unions we have. It was the ethics of posting ALL the teachers names and salaries in the state over one small potentially "illegal" strike.

I am still groggy... didn't someone laugh at my grammer earlier??? :)

cheers

Posted by: jimmy on September 3, 2005 09:03 AM
28. The individual hosting this website:

http://lbloom.net/

has information on state salaries from 1995, 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003, and 2005 including university employees. There are also postings for city employees. All of this information is public and was obtained through freedom of information requests.

Posted by: gail on September 3, 2005 10:03 AM
29. Years ago (all right, decades ago), I lived in Iowa for a few years. I was a bit surprised to see the Des Moines paper publish an article giving the salaries of every single teacher in Des Moines, by name. (The paper is not now and was not then a Republican paper, by the way.)

I wouldn't publish the salaries of individual teachers in a newspaper -- unless they became involved in a controversy that made the salaries relevant -- but I do think the salaries should be publicly available. I think Marsha has done us a service in this case.

Posted by: Jim Miller on September 3, 2005 10:10 AM
30. Jimmy,

If you’re mad at Marsha for making PUBLIC school teacher salaries available, what are you going to do to the state’s Office of Financial Management for making the name, pay band, and salary available for every single one of the state’s PUBLIC employees available on its website?

http://www.ofm.wa.gov/persdetail/2005/pdcontents.htm

Seems to me your real complaint should be with the OSPI for not making this PUBLIC information available on its website and leaving this public service to EFF. Had Marsha included the home contact numbers and addresses of teachers, then maybe you’d have a point, but not their compensation.

If you don’t want your employer to know what you are individually making, get another job.

You should link to you home blog from this site to help us get a better feel from where you are coming from.

http://www.mccranium.org

Marsha has made it clear where she is coming from (accountability for the billions in tax dollars we are putting into the K-12 system).

Posted by: public info on September 3, 2005 10:26 AM
31. Jim Miller,

Your analogy is right on.

A few years ago, we had a huge controversy here in Whitman County involving the teachers. They wanted to cut the school day by one hour on Wednesdays so they could have an extra hour for "planning."

The publisher of the local newspaper printed a scathing editorial against this. We had teachers and teachers' husbands coming in and threatening to jump over the counter and flatten him. It was quite a scandal. Some teachers actually cancelled their subscriptions. A few months later, this same group of teachers sent us a picture of themselves with their diplomas for receiving their master’s degrees. Of course, they wanted it printed in the newspaper.

Around this same time, the publisher had a dentist appointment on a Wednesday afternoon at about 3 p.m. He met one of these "dedicated" teachers on the sidewalk, running errands. He automatically looked at the teacher, and then looked at his watch. No words were spoken. Every Wednesday we see the buses go by about 2:45 p.m. Every Wednesday we see a majority of teachers drive by around 3 or 3:15 p.m. "Planning" my fanny.

I took the printout of Colfax schoolteacher’s salaries to my publisher. He is considering printing it in the newspaper. I think he should. A lot of fine, hardworking people in this county do not have any idea how much these teachers make.

Posted by: cc on September 3, 2005 10:58 AM
32. Public Info

That thought had crossed my mind. But really, my beef here was how and where it was being used. I think the OSPI is another discussion.

Posted by: jimmy on September 3, 2005 12:09 PM
33. Calvin,

There is a huge difference, a HUGE difference, between ASKING... and DEMANDING.

"Asking" is one thing... holding our children hostage by having an illegal strike is quite another. LYING about how much you're paid.... playing the "underpaid" card for A PART TIME JOB.

So, PLEASE... USE THE PRECISE TERMINOLOGY. Soft-selling it as "asking" when it is something completely different doesn't help. It kinda reminds me of the lies the pro 728 and 732 side told us... you know... the ones where they guaranteed their extortion wasn't going to require a tax increase?

And, BTW, your post has rebutted nothing about my "claims" on the matter of teacher's pay. These "claims" speak for themselves. Run the numbers and show us where I'm wrong.

Posted by: Who.... me? on September 3, 2005 12:30 PM
34. Anyone who thinks teachers work part-time needs to open their eyes. I taught all summer and made an extra 3,000 to bump me to a lofty 37,000. The requirements of continuing education and licensure of new teachers makes working during the summer (10 weeks) a tight fit.
I do agree strongly for merit pay. It kills me to see some of my fellow, older, entrenched teachers making 25,000+ more than me when I know without question (from their own mouths) that they do as little as possible, and still cry about what they make.
Teachers need help throwing off the Union yoke. There is a system in place that is so pro-union it is ridiculous, most teachers I work with feel their dues go towards political parties they don't support, or the pork in the NEA/WEA.
There are some awesome teachers out there that are being paid a fraction of what some bad teachers are making. There are no checks and balances for bad teachers, they just continue to graze.

Posted by: west seattle on September 3, 2005 03:51 PM
35. 1. You knew exactly what the job paid before you took it. Therefore, you have precisely zero complaint coming. Doesn't pay enough? Quit. Go do something else.

2. THE ONLY TIME YOU ARE WORKING IS WHEN YOU'RE IN THE CLASSROOM. AND YOU ARE IN THE CLASSROOM 182 DAYS PER YEAR.

3. You are PAID for your "continuing education." When you achieve the mandatory master's degree (which, come to think of it, you ALSO knew about in advance) you get a higher rate of pay.

Your "continuing education" is NOT "work."

I stand by my position on this issue, and to you and any other overworked or put upon teacher, I again ask you to quit.

There is nothing wrong with the pay teachers receive in this state: that's proven by the fact that there are no shortages of teachers in our schools.

Check out a few big city websites around the state. See how many vacancies there are... or better yet, check 2 months from now... and see how many openings are available.

If the pay was so low... so unacceptable, then these sites would be covered with openings... classes wouldn't get taught... kids would be going without.

Right now, the fact is that the only time kids "go without" is when their teachers dump them to take their misspelled protest signs down to the Capital during the school week... or when their teachers teach their students a lesson by breaking the law when they go on strike.

Posted by: Who.... me? on September 4, 2005 12:03 AM
36. Question 1: Is it right to publish the income of a public school teacher who happens to be disputing his or her current wage?

Answer: Hell yes. WE employ them, and We have the right to know what we're paying them, and whether or not they are EARNING what they get. If they don't like it, they can quit and start teaching in private schools (although they won't be able to suckle at the golden teat if they do).

Question 2: Do our state'e teachers deserve what they get now?

Answer: H-E-L-L no! Want to see why? View these two reports, one of which was submitted by our own worthless state Superintensdent of Public Instruction (a worthless-but-overpaid WEA whore if ever one existed):

1: http://www.edexcellence.net/doc/Washington.pdf

(Thomas Fordham Foundation, February 2005. Report on State English and Math Standards [Washington section].)

2: http://www.effwa.org/pdfs/Remediation2004.pdf

(State Board for Community & Technical Colleges, Superintendent of Public Instruction, and Higher Education Coordinating Board, December 2004. Pre-college (Remedial) Course-Taking in Washington Postsecondary Education: Causes and Solutions.)

If these greedy union whiners (Machinist union slobs included) deserve anything, it is to be promptly and summarily sacked.

Posted by: ERNurse on September 4, 2005 06:19 PM
37. I'm disappointed that there appears to be no relationship at all between salaries and performance. There are teachers on the list who are terrific teachers who are paid less than some who are just plain lousy (from our experience). Salaries must be based primarily on length of employment, otherwise some of these folks would be paid much more and some much less.

Posted by: Peggy U. on September 5, 2005 02:13 AM
38. I was a college prof at U. Nebraska 1969-71. The first year I won outstanding young professor on the campus. I had tried NOT to be like the dead wood profs at Gunnison's WSC. I made finance students do math and solve problems my old professors couldn't touch, and I failed a bunch, and tossed out cheaters. Later I caught a cheater-exam thief at U of Oregon who was a guard on the 6th ranking basketball team. I walked to his frat house and demanded and got the multi-class final exam back. He was set free by liberals from the English and Humanities dept in a phoney hearing.... no doubt to benefit the Basketball Ranking.

The years in Nebraska were when the NEA had just unionized secondary schools and colleges. So salaries improved, but, you know? That was about the exact time Johnny stopped learning how to read and write, and do his math. This happened all over the country. Everybody muses about how kids stopped learning the 3R's, but they fail to link it to the timing of Unionization. The overlap is exact.

Posted by: Keb on September 5, 2005 04:51 PM
39. Jimmy, et al.

Public Information...

In the age of the Internet, many things are "public" which otherwise wouldn't be.

One of the main reasons I read this weblog is because it encourages transparency in Washington government. Marsha's post is categorically ethical. The information posted may be sensitive, but it is by no means private.

I'm tired of hearing that teacher's are all categorically underpaid. The infromation provided by SP and EFF is a long overdue response to the outright lies, distortions, and omissions of teachers and their unions.

Education is a hot topic in Washington these days. As it should be!

And for those of you who have cooked up some secret agenda at work, here's what I think:

The only agenda I see is that SP and EFF are committed to exposing corruption, increasing choice, and encouraging transparency in government. Keep up the good work!

Posted by: Patrick E. Bell on September 5, 2005 08:27 PM
40. Swizzlestick - You first....Or STFU

Posted by: alphabet soup on September 5, 2005 10:50 PM
41. I tend to supspect the motivations of those that espouse public policy research, but are not willing to disclose their own salaries and source. Share your salary data Marsha and I might be a bit more inclined to sympathize.

Posted by: Matt on September 6, 2005 04:25 PM
42. I agree with Matt. But not just Marsha's salary. This could go a bit deeper into EFF's funding sources themselves. If Marsha insists that people should know about our educator's salaries, perhaps we could learn a little more about those motivations by looking at EFF's funding sources. It is a fair question. Can EFF answer that? I challenge them to do just that.

The way I see it, many of the folks here beleive the motivation was to "tell teachers to stop whining about pay". Reality may well suggest their agenda is to deconstruct public education. Let's have a look see at their donor list and decide if that is true?

Cough it up EFF.

Posted by: Jimmy on September 6, 2005 06:46 PM
43. there is a vast difference between knowing the salary of highly visible publicly elected servants like Patty Murray and knowing the specific salary of your neighbor down the street who teaches choir at your local school.

publishing the specific name of each teacher and how much they make, while it might be legal, is sick. it's sick. literally sick. and the fact that you think you're entitled to this detailed amount of information about your neighbors speaks highly upon what type of person you are, what type of life you lead, and what type of morality you follow.

i have no problem with "XXXX" out names and providing a list of salaries. i have no problem discussing very specific points of teacher's salaries, of what they do, of how many years they've worked and etc. i have no problem discussing median income level, benefit level, hours works and on and on.

however, linking that information to specific people is uncalled for.

you may have the legal right to this information, but you have no moral right to it. you have think you do, but you don't.

Posted by: grznt on September 7, 2005 04:10 PM
44. Marsha's explanation suffices for me. They're public employees, period, and the salary information is posted on a publicly accessible source. If pointing to the source helps the public understand the very contentious subject of teacher compensation a little better, then all the better. The salary of every state employee is also available in a publicly accessible document. What's the difference? If individual teachers' salaries should not be disclosed, then would your correspondents also say that individual state employees' should not be, either? Grznt says there's a "vast difference between knowing the salary of highly visible public employees like Patty Murray and knowing the specific salary of your neighbor down the street who teaches choir at your local school." Really? What would that difference be? Since that neighbor teaches your kids, and is paid in part with your property taxes, you might even feel you have more need -- and more moral right --to know her salary than Sen. Murray's. What about the superintendent's salary? What about the principal's. Where would Grznt draw the line between what is "sick" to want to know, and what is not? How would Grznt apply that "Sen. Murray yes, local teacher no distinction" to state employees? Whose publicly accessible salaries should be "disclosed," and whose not? These are pretty murky waters. Those who have commented that when salary information is provided, it should be with the context needed to understand what you're looking at, are of course correct.

Another fact that should go almost without saying is that salaries are just a part of a total compensation package, and that you cannot put teacher compensation in its proper perspective without looking at its benefits components, too.

Posted by: jsa on September 7, 2005 06:17 PM
45. please quote me correctly if you're going to.

i said, "there is a vast difference between knowing the salary of highly visible publicly elected servants like Patty Murray and knowing the specific salary of your neighbor down the street who teaches choir at your local school."

local school teachers are not publicly elected officials.

yes, you pay their salary. yes you have the RIGHT to know what teachers are getting paid. and, yes, the waters can be murky as to where the line should be drawn between your local teachers, your local city council, your fireman, your state senator and your rep. from the u.s. house.

what makes you think you're entitled to this information? further more, what GOOD does knowing this information do?

like i said in the past, i have no problem discussing very specific points of teacher's salaries. i have no problem disclosing how much teachers are getting paid.

roll out a huge excel sheet with specifics of educational background, years teaching, benefit packages, what specific job they do for the school district... be my guest. i have no problem with that.

i DO have a problem with linking specific salary information to a specific name.

it speaks highly as to what type of person you are when you think you're entitled to such information.

Posted by: grznt on September 8, 2005 10:10 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?