Teachers Taking "Sick Days" - Anyone want to defend this one?

[JohnLarue]

Without being selective, how much should teachers be paid?

I think I have already established that an average Ontario teacher has an IQ score in the top 10% of the Canadian population. If that is true, I would expect their incoming to be in the top 10% of population as well. From the CBC, I found the following:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/interactives/canada-income/

So, based on 2009 income, the average Ontario teacher’s income falls around the 90%tile range. Just as their IQ scores would have predicted. Police officers, with IQ in the average range, also earn in the 90%tile range. That strikes me as being excessive.

Another poster posted the calculations of economist Linda Nazareth. In the Globe and Mail article, she compared Ontario teachers’ salary to that of the OECD average and came up with a 1.05 ratio. In other words, teachers in Ontario earn 5% more than the average in the OECD nations.

Could it be that Canada is simply an expensive place to “do business”? I can not come up with the OECD average for police officers, but I can come up with one for doctors. Although the article talked about 2006 income, the ratio should still hold:

http://www.practicelink.com/magazine/vital-stats/physician-compensation-worldwide/

So for a general practitioner in Canada, his income, adjusted for PPP, is 1.3375 that of his OECD counterparts. Since many of the OECD nations have come through a recession greater than that of Canada, I can only assume that the ratio has increased.

While the stock market is highly efficient, the job market does not appear so.

# 1. I know a few teachers. I would be extremely surprised if they were in the top 10% of Canadian IQ
#2. The job market (this one in particular), is not at all efficient as the union makes it highly inefficient
If the job market were efficient
a) Teachers salary's would not be 83K a year ( more like $60-65K)
b) Teachers would work a full year
c) Teachers would only require approx. 10 sick days a year
d) Teachers would not be able to bank these sick days for a $40K bonus at the end of their careers
e) The teachers parking lots would not be emptied @ 3:16
f) Poorly performing teachers would get fired
g) Teachers would be responsible to fund 100% of their pension

Most importantly
The students interests would not be secondary, after teachers financial interests
The students would never ever be used a pawns in negotiations (I am furious that teachers did this)
The students would be properly prepared for the world when they graduate.

 

[CTSblues]

# 1. I know a few teachers. I would be extremely surprised if they were in the top 10% of Canadian IQ

Few are not enough. You need a random sample in the thousands. Gottfredson is a liberal, but her graph is based on US national statistics. Without an IQ in the 120 range, you would not get high enough grades to get into teachers’ college in Ontario. This is how John Murray, a conservative, puts it:

It is possible for someone with an IQ of 100 to sit in the lectures of Economics 1, read the textbook, and write answers in an examination book. But students who cannot follow complex arguments accurately are not really learning economics. They are taking away a mishmash of half-understood information and outright misunderstandings that probably leave them under the illusion that they know something they do not. (A depressing research literature documents one's inability to recognize one's own incompetence.) Traditionally and properly understood, a four-year college education teaches advanced analytic skills and information at a level that exceeds the intellectual capacity of most people.

http://www.aei.org/article/society-and-culture/citizenship/whats-wrong-with-vocational-school/

#2. The job market (this one in particular), is not at all efficient as the union makes it highly inefficient
If the job market were efficient

The inefficiency in the jobs market can be exploited. My recommendation is for young people to spend some money and have an IQ test done. Based on the scores, pick jobs they can do (and tolerate) with the greatest return on time and money. In short, join the most powerful union you can at your level of competence.

I would argue, for example, that policing is a much better option than teaching. 60 days of training after high school is far better than 5 and soon to be 6 years of university. Medicine is also good, but unless you have an IQ of 130 and above, it is highly unlikely you can score well enough in the MCAT to make it. I think you need a score of 30 to stand a chance. Notice that 130 would put you in the top 2% of population, two standard deviations above the norm, showing just how quickly the numbers drop once you get to the tails.

My problem with your position is that you have failed to see the forest for the tree. While the teachers are paid well, they are not as well paid as doctors. Since our student population is dropping, the teacher “problem” will shrink in importance. Health care costs, on the other hand, will sky-rocket as baby boomers hitting retirement age. That is where the real problem is right now and will be for years to come. Why don't you focus your effort where you can do the most good?

1. Most importantly
The students interests would not be secondary, after teachers financial interests
The students would never ever be used a pawns in negotiations (I am furious that teachers did this)
The students would be properly prepared for the world when they graduate.

You are looking for Mother Theresa. I know of no group in society that does not put their self-interest first. The best you can hope for is a group with low psychopathic tendencies. Teachers are already that, in contrast with policeman, businessman etc.

http://www.chron.com/jobs/article/Jobs-fit-for-a-psychopath-4172506.php

 

[mur11]

While I agree with most of your points, CTS, I would be very cautious about advising people to take an IQ test and then based their career decisions around their result. IQ tests are flawed measurements of intelligence in many ways

I do agree with your point about healthcare being a much bigger and more pressing issue than teacher salaries, which is why is it indicative of John's close-minded approach that he keeps fixating on teacher salaries. I also agree that John holds teachers to a standard which I suspect he does not achieve himself

 

[JohnLarue]

.

My problem with your position is that you have failed to see the forest for the tree. While the teachers are paid well, they are not as well paid as doctors. Since our student population is dropping, the teacher “problem” will shrink in importance. Health care costs, on the other hand, will sky-rocket as baby boomers hitting retirement age. That is where the real problem is right now and will be for years to come. Why don't you focus your effort where you can do the most good?

Hello!
Paying teachers (and other public sector union employees) a huge excess has driven up the provincial debt
This debt is becoming unmanageable and will be a real serious issue when rates rise

http://occ.on.ca/2013/occ-rapid-policy-update-what-2013-ontario-budget-means-for-business/

The deficit is projected at $9.8 billion for 2012-13. Total net debt is projected at $268 billion or approximately $20,000 per person. The debt to GDP ratio is project at 37.5 percent.

Government program spending continues to grow. It has increased by 49 percent since 2004-05 and 23 percent since 2007-08.

The three biggest spending items in the budget are health $48.9 billion (38.3 percent), education $24.1 billion (18.9 percent), and $10.6 billion for interest on the debt servicing (8.3 percent).

Public sector wages account for 50 percent of all program spending. Average wage settlements across the public sector have averaged at around 0.1 percent. Executive pay has been frozen.

However, little progress has been made on public sector pensions, which have been, according to the Drummond Commission, “responsible for much of the total increase in program spending.”

Interest rates are at a historical low and projected to remain so until 2014. History teaches us they will inevitably go up. Ontario is extremely vulnerable to interest rate increases and must take greater advantage in this low interest rate period to get its fiscal house in order.

So we pay $10.6 B on borrowed money @ 1-2%
What happens if rates go to 6% or 8%, just as the health care costs start to escalate as you indicate


You say I can not see the forest for the trees, however you are missing the bigger picture.
You and many others put expenditures into silos justifying paying teachers $83K because cops make $90 K or some other comparable
In the end , all the money comes out of the same pile and waste is waste no matter, where is occurs
Ontario had an opportunity to put the genie back in the bottle by standing firm against what was clearly an over compensated group
Instead they gave them a 2 % increase and caved on the sick day issue. No mention of the real problem, the pension costs

Mark my words, this abomination of a settlement will have three extremely unpleasant outcomes
1. Every other union will use this settlement as a standard and demand a 2% + raise and will not allow any fix of the pension obligation
2. In 5 years time, rates will be higher, our interest bill will be $20 B /yr and the demands for more health care services will be growing at an exponential rate
3. Taxes will have to go up

We have not even considered the billions needed for transit infrastructure

Any justification you can come up with for caving to the teachers implies "you can not see the forest for the trees"

 

[JohnLarue]

While I agree with most of your points, CTS, I would be very cautious about advising people to take an IQ test and then based their career decisions around their result. IQ tests are flawed measurements of intelligence in many ways

I do agree with your point about healthcare being a much bigger and more pressing issue than teacher salaries, which is why is it indicative of John's close-minded approach that he keeps fixating on teacher salaries. I also agree that John holds teachers to a standard which I suspect he does not achieve himself

I want to hold them to a reasonable standard
Perhaps a standard which would be applied in the private sector.
That is where the majority of the tax dollars are collected

Teachers pay will now be very close to being in the top 5% of all Canadians
That is financially irresponsible

 

[JohnLarue]

You are looking for Mother Theresa. I know of no group in society that does not put their self-interest first. The best you can hope for is a group with low psychopathic tendencies. Teachers are already that, in contrast with policeman, businessman etc.

Their very position exists to service students
They always talk about putting students first

I guess what you say and what you do are two separate things if they conflict with your own financial interest or you belong to a union

 

[CapitalGuy]

I want to hold them to a reasonable standard
Perhaps a standard which would be applied in the private sector.
That is where the majority of the tax dollars are collected

Teachers pay will now be very close to being in the top 5% of all Canadians
That is financially irresponsible

And ridiculous. Their intellectual output and the value of their accumulated experience do not amount to much. Teachers are easily replaced - a teacher with 25 years experience can be replaced by a fresh college grad with no loss of value or input to the system. Their "experience" amounts to regurgitating the same lessons, longer than the new arrivals. Compare that to a professional with 25 years of experience in their field. Oops, you can't. The replacement analogy does not apply to lawyers, engineers, pharmacists, etc. Hell, it doesn't even apply to cops or firefighters or auto mechanics. But, the capital of Russia will always be Moscow, no matter how many years you teach that to new students.

 

[DTECanada]

1) People with high IQs are more likely to be needed in engineering fields and would be more sought after (therefore paid more) in the private sector. This would result in teacher shortages.

2) A high IQ does not equate to being a good teacher. An individual can be brillant and not be able to teach. Teaching is an interpersonal skill.

3) What is important is pedagogy and lesson-planning. How we teach and the methods of teaching are neglected I believe. There should exist an elite cadre of educators and subject-matter experts who create engaging and effective lesson plans. In turn, these lesson plans can be provided to the classroom teachers to implement.

 

[dexter]

"And why are teachers giving so many ISU assignements to be done in class"

Because students plagiarize. They are experts at cutting and pasting from Google.
When they are caught and given a zero the helicopter parents swoop in and blame the teachers "for not teaching" their little princes and princesses what plagiarism is.

 

[DTECanada]

Because students plagiarize. They are experts at cutting and pasting from Google.
When they are caught and given a zero the helicopter parents swoop in and blame the teachers "for not teaching" their little princes and princesses what plagiarism is.

Absolutely!!! This happened to me when I was teaching. Half my class cut and pasted to varying degrees. One parent asked what plagiarism was and I said it was taking the words or ideas of another and presenting them as your own. She asked if that was the dictionary definition and I said I did not know if it was exact. She demanded the dictionary be consulted. It said "taking the words or ideas of another and presenting them as your own." She still wouldn't give up. I think some parents are so lousy at home that they think harassing teachers will make up for neglecting their children.

 

[Toke]

Absolutely!!! This happened to me when I was teaching. Half my class cut and pasted to varying degrees. One parent asked what plagiarism was and I said it was taking the words or ideas of another and presenting them as your own. She asked if that was the dictionary definition and I said I did not know if it was exact. She demanded the dictionary be consulted. It said "taking the words or ideas of another and presenting them as your own." She still wouldn't give up. I think some parents are so lousy at home that they think harassing teachers will make up for neglecting their children.

LOL. Read the first three pages of this thread. Or search 'Beiber'.

 

[DTECanada]

And ridiculous. Their intellectual output and the value of their accumulated experience do not amount to much. Teachers are easily replaced - a teacher with 25 years experience can be replaced by a fresh college grad with no loss of value or input to the system. Their "experience" amounts to regurgitating the same lessons, longer than the new arrivals. Compare that to a professional with 25 years of experience in their field. Oops, you can't. The replacement analogy does not apply to lawyers, engineers, pharmacists, etc. Hell, it doesn't even apply to cops or firefighters or auto mechanics. But, the capital of Russia will always be Moscow, no matter how many years you teach that to new students.

The vigor and enthusiasm of young teachers can be wonderful, but then they hit the reality of a classroom of pubescent kids with short attention spans and...50% of teachers flame out within three years. Teaching is tough. It's not about subject matter knowledge as much as it is about managing and communicating. You think managing 25 millionaire athletes is tough? Try 25-30 kids in puberty who want to be playing video games.

Sometimes I think teachers fight for pay and compensation simply because it's attainable and what they really want - respect- is unattainable.

That said, teaching is like any other profession: there are good ones, mediocre ones, and bad ones.

 

[DTECanada]

LOL. Read the first three pages of this thread. Or search 'Beiber'.

Wow. Interesting.

 

[CTSblues]

While I agree with most of your points, CTS, I would be very cautious about advising people to take an IQ test and then based their career decisions around their result. IQ tests are flawed measurements of intelligence in many ways

You are right. I should not take “artistic license” too far.

Any psychologist worth her weight in salt, however, would not start and stop with an IQ test. She would probably look at the academic transcript, perhaps some personality and occupational inventories, some structured interview etc.

What we do know is that if we have to use just one method of evaluation, there is nothing that predicts on-the-job performance better than IQ scores:

http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-dead-end-of-disparate-impact

Indeed, it is safe to say that cognitive ability better predicts on-the-job performance than does any personality trait or talent that IOP experts have yet identified. Conscientiousness — the personality trait with the strongest documented link to job success — shows a correlation with job performance in the range of about 0.2 to 0.4, in contrast with the significantly higher correlation of 0.5 or more for IQ. Contrary to the Supreme Court's assumption in Griggs, the comparative power of IQ extends even to relatively uncomplicated positions requiring modest skills, such as clerical or retail work. What this means is that hiring on the basis of intelligence — as opposed to other, non-cognitive personal attributes or talents — will almost always produce better-performing workers.

This is truly disturbing but is consistent with my experience. My interest in this whole area started when my children were young, and I have followed them from kindergarten into the world of work. Intelligence, education and income are linked like an iron chain, and you can not talk about one without the others.

Correction: The name of the gentleman is Charles Murray, not John Murray.

 

[CTSblues]

You say I can not see the forest for the trees, however you are missing the bigger picture.
You and many others put expenditures into silos justifying paying teachers $83K because cops make $90 K or some other comparable
In the end , all the money comes out of the same pile and waste is waste no matter, where is occurs

Mark my words, this abomination of a settlement will have three extremely unpleasant outcomes
1. Every other union will use this settlement as a standard and demand a 2% + raise and will not allow any fix of the pension obligation
2. In 5 years time, rates will be higher, our interest bill will be $20 B /yr and the demands for more health care services will be growing at an exponential rate
3. Taxes will have to go up

If I were to represent a union, I would use this settlement as a standard (a big tree):

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/busine...se+city+helpless+rein+them/8230333/story.html

BTW, I don't have problem with your premise, but picking on the teachers (a medium-sized tree) alone is useless. The U.S. pays their teachers poorly, but still has a Government Debt-to-GDP of 101.6%. I see no way for them to ever pay off the national debt except through massive inflation, do you?

We need to deal with the source of the problem, and the problem is us (the forest). If we as citizens do not push for more and more services, we would not need more and more civil servants to service them, right? Instead of bribing us with our own money, how about refunding us our share of the social budget we did not partake, and penalize us for over-drawing it? We need to use operant-conditioning to reshape public attitude towards public debt, the way Paul Volcker reshaped our attitude towards inflation.

I know people in my decile of the IQ range under utilize our share of the social spending pie. I am particularly “frugal”- never divorced, never unemployed, never in trouble with the law, don’t smoke, hardly ever drink, never overweight, and do not engage in “risky” activities. The only area I might have overspent is in education. Why then should I be penalized? Why should I be responsible for those who choose differently?

 

[Yoga Face]

You do not have the first loose clue about economics

my knowledge of anything is that of a layman with little formal education and appreciate your tutoring but I will not automatically accept what u say if I disagree


that would make me a bad student and you a bad teacher

[/QUOTE]

certainly do not understand taxation or the impacts of paying teachers an average salary of $83K (soon to be closer to $90K)

I most certainly do understand

i have never over borrowed and never, never have a credit card debt

That debt will roll over at higher interest rates soon and will result in higher borrowing costs and eventually

that is what caused the housing collapse

IE the hidden interest rate rise in mortgages with low starter teaser rates that greedy unregulated banks pawned off on naïve greedy unqualified house flippers and first time home buyers


the banks knew they were unqualified buyers but saw $$$$$$$$ in bundling bad mortgages then selling them insured by some of the nation's largest insurance companies which were bailed out by the government's Troubled Assets Relief Program

this never happened in Canada because, and only because, the government in their wisdom forsaw the needs for mortgage controls .

unfortunately, this same wisdom is needed elsewhere

I say unfortunate because I would love a Libertarian state of no rules if it worked

The same week the current nitwit Premier signed away hundreds of millions of dollars in wage increase to already overpaid teachers, she was talking about tax increases in order to fund much need transit infrastructure.

She should have reduced teachers salaries by 10-15% in order to help fund the infrastructure

no as the solution is to make the rich actually pay their taxes and controls over the bay street boys


we have argued this before but I cannot accept that people get richer (by investing) just because they are rich while the workers ants go from paycheck to paycheck

soon they will own it all and we will have a real economic depression and social upheaval that will destroy freedom

this is what nobel prize winner Stiglitz believes


here he denounces the invisible hand theory


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qjvwQrZmpk

 

[Possum Trot]

I stopped taking this thread seriously when I read the claim that they were in the top 10% when it comes to IQ. Hilarious stuff.

 

[FAST]

Not the same

I stopped taking this thread seriously when I read the claim that they were in the top 10% when it comes to IQ. Hilarious stuff.

YA,...I thought IQ testing was a way of grading some ones intelligence,...doesn't seem to work very well.

There is an old saying in HI FI circles,..."if the test comes out good, but it sounds bad, your testing the for wrong thing".

FAST

 

[dirk076]

Those courses are university courses and paid for by the teachers. They do net get paid over the summer and pd days are still spent at school

Really? LOL....First, as someone who has provided seminar services to school boards on PA days... I call pure and utter bullshit. The seminars I have provided are not school related and are of personal interest and of no professional value. Second, only half the people registered show up. Third, the joking I hear about where they are skipping out to next is outrageous. Stop drinking the koolaid.

 

[JohnLarue]

my knowledge of anything is that of a layman with little formal education

So, you admit you do not have the in depth training to understand impacts of taxation and excessive govt spending upon an economy

I most certainly do understand
i have never over borrowed and never, never have a credit card debt

So you understand how dangerous debt can be

that is what caused the housing collapse
IE the hidden interest rate rise in mortgages with low starter teaser rates that greedy unregulated banks pawned off on naïve greedy unqualified house flippers and first time home buyers

More or less, however the ones who borrowed more than they could afford must shoulder most of the blame
The selling incentives were also not properly aligned

the banks knew they were unqualified buyers but saw $$$$$$$$ in bundling bad mortgages then selling them insured by some of the nation's largest insurance companies which were bailed out by the government's Troubled Assets Relief Program

Ask anyone who owned Leman brother shares how that worked out
Buyer beware

this never happened in Canada because, and only because, the government in their wisdom forsaw the needs for mortgage controls .
unfortunately, this same wisdom is needed elsewhere

I say unfortunate because I would love a Libertarian state of no rules if it worked

Too many rules can be just as bad, problem is the one who write the rules are often not the sharpest or have hidden agendas

no as the solution is to make the rich actually pay their taxes and controls over the bay street boys

100% incorrect
You want to reward those who refuse to do their job (teachers) and create no wealth by stealing from those that actually create GDP, wealth and jobs.

No govts have to control their spending
Why are paying teachers $83K ++ for working 2/3 of a job. That is insane and makes us uncompetitive relative to our global competitors


As far as the bay street, this is an area you will not understand properly and an extremely important sector of the economy
Best you read and learn more before determining such an extreme opinion

we have argued this before but I cannot accept that people get richer (by investing) just because they are rich while the workers ants go from paycheck to paycheck

soon they will own it all and we will have a real economic depression and social upheaval that will destroy freedom

Every year there are new millionaires , this year there was a big surge in new Canadians and women who became millionaires.
What separates them from those who work from paycheck to paycheck?
Primarily the thought of having to survive from paycheque to paycheque.

No sorry, you are proposing communism and we can not have that

this is what nobel prize winner Stiglitz believes


here he denounces the invisible hand theory

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qjvwQrZmpk[/QUOTE]

I could care less what he thinks