Corth wrote:Pril wrote:Corth wrote:There are plenty of qualified teachers who have left the profession to earn more money elsewhere, and would return if the pay was better.Corth wrote:Lets put it this way. None are underpaid. Why? Because the school district wouldn't be able to fill the position if they weren't offering enough money. The fact that someone voluntarily applied for the position and voluntarily took the job and continues to work there indicates to me that they are being paid sufficiently at minimum.
Corth are you even reading what you write? According to you if they are "underpaid" they should switch jobs. Then you write that many have "switched jobs and would come back if pay was better" yes yer absolutely right. Hence they are UNDERPAID and are not returning and if you PAID THEM MORE (as per your argument) they would return.
I did not say if they are underpaid they should switch jobs. I said that if they can make more money elsewhere, then all things being equal they should take another job. For instance, if they can be a human resources manager and make more money, and they don't have any preference over the two positions, then they should go take the human resources job.
If there were not enough teachers to fill all necessary positions, then salaries would increase, and some of those human resource managers might decide they prefer to be teachers. That is why there is no true teacher shortage. Anyone who says there is a teacher shortage is parroting propaganda. Just about every necessary teaching position is filled, and to the extent that any aren't, its not because there is a shortage but rather because the district is not offering enough money.
Teachers who agree to work for X dollars per year, are not underpaid, as they AGREED to work for X dollars per year instead of doing something else.
Districts can just magically offer more money without pissing off the voters now?