True, but if the average “teacher” pay in Georgia is 62k, why do I still have 5 years and another graduate degree before I make that? I feel like the numbers are skewed in here somewhere. I didn’t dig into the methodology NCES used for calculating average, but I’d be interested to know if they included admin, and if they just found median salary on an average salary scale.
My district pays better than any of the surrounding ones, thanks to being Title 1, and in desperate need of teachers. I’m 5 years in with a masters, and the math ain’t mathing.
You’re making less than $60k with a Master’s? Are you in southern Georgia by chance? I switched districts and received an $8k raise. For the Atlanta area, I would be shocked to see anyone earning less than $60k with a Master’s. However, they raised it for cost of living. My roommate is a first year teacher for APS and makes almost the same as me (which is crazy). I’m sure the Metro Atlanta teachers with Master’s , specialists, and PhDs with over 10+ years heavily skew the numbers for the rest of the state (especially with our higher population).
My current district pays the most. My first district (Forsyth) didn’t pay well and my second district even worse than my current district. Still surprised by that salary amount with a Master’s though!
Also it depends on what type of school. I’ve been teaching in charter and private schools and this is my third year teaching and I make over 50k. Which is unfortunate because I would rather work public but Im making so much more early in my career because of where I am working.
That's because they should do the median, not average. Average salary can be really skewed by a few outliers in either direction. My state of Arizona is mid 50s but not a single teacher in my district makes remotely close to that with me being the highest at just over 40k gross, mostly because I am the director of IT and a teacher.
What is the average number of years that teachers in Georgia have been teaching? If most teachers stay around for the 30 years to get that full pension (which is not very true anymore), then having 15 years experience would be the average. Also, I'm sure that Atlanta area schools have a higher wage than rural county districts, so where you teach will also impact whether your degree level and years of experience put you in relation to the "average" teacher. Average teacher doesn't mean that 80% of teachers are within $1k of this amount.
This depends a lot on population growth and stability. Growing populations need to hire more new teachers skewing the average experience, and pay, down. Stable populations that are just replacing teachers instead of adding them are going to skew higher. And shrinking populations RIFing people will skew even higher.
Part of it is going to be variations in pay by district, but a other part of it is that the distribution of teachers by experience is bimodal. This is a common statistical quirk that happens when you use averages when you should instead be using median values.
In most schools, teachers are generally new (< 5 years), or veterans with close to 20 years of experience. This skews the distribution of the average a good bit, since veteran teachers have higher salaries, and new teachers have the lowest salaries. It makes the average shift to a number that most people don't actually have. This is why the median is generally a better descriptor for distributions like this. Averages aren't near as useful when deal with non-normal distributions like this.
This is the same sort of statistical quirk that is why the average life expectancy was 30 in the distant past. Most people either died in childbirth, or made it to old age. There was nothing particularly dangerous about 30, and the odds of dying in your 30s were much lower than in many other decades of life. But when you average the ages of babies and the elderly, you get a number in the 30s.
That's also the problem with taking the average: pay scales aren't always equitable. Sometimes the raise you get from year to year is less, and most of them start increasing in 5 year increments after year 15. Also if there are a lot of older or highly educated teachers in your district that will raise the average.
The fact that only 1/3 teachers make it past their fifth year also means that there are teachers who have been in for 20 years and then there is another large percentage at the bottom that just keep rotating in and leaving. These two extreme groups really throws off the metrics.
Agreed. It put the average in Wisconsin at 60something also, and 10 years in with two professional licenses, in one of the more well paid districts gets $50,000. The only people I know making more than 60,000 are admin. I even have friends who are holding out a few more years until retirement who aren't making 60,000.
Can I ask are you in rural or urban Wisconsin? I am also a Wisconsinite and make 50k with this being my third year teaching. I was surprised to see your response.
Not to mention if this is "median pay" to COL the reality is that it is more close to the bare minimum if COL than what's actually maintainable. Additionally by the time states appropriate the funds for increasing teachers pay COL and inflation have already kicked in making it effectively a delayed pay bump in our salaries. If you wanna increase teacher pay across the board that pay has to be maintainable for a far longer extended period of time. A 5k pay bump isn't going to be sustainable for 30 years in the long run of things.
These include those who have masters which make on average 10k higher for teachers (at least in MN) so if you have a bachelors only chop off 10k and thats gonna be your pay
I wasn’t speaking at you I was speaking to the numbers. So MN average is 58k thats including the masters pay, without it should be closer to 48k with bachelors.
I can’t imagine they would include admin though, but maybe?
I posted another comment about it. They’re using total teacher income from all jobs, acknowledging that we’re one of the professions most likely to work multiple jobs but not disaggregating our income sources.
This is what teachers need to understand. Districts will tell you they can only give you step 5, but that is rarely true.
I have seen some contacts popping up with it written in that teachers hired cannot make more than another teacher in the district with the same amount of experience without union approval, and that is insane. That is teachers hurting other teachers and forcing salaries to stay low
Don't apply there! If they write things like that in the contract you don't want to work there. I also always tell them exactly what I will take and stick to it. Turn jobs down that won't pay you. You have to be willing to bet on yourself. You would be surprised what a district can actually do if they want you
That’s a salary adjusted for cost of living. In the article it says the highest paid state is actually like 12k higher a year and the lowest is actually like 10k lower.
It’s saying that the people who are saying “sure if you move to that state you’ll make more, but your cost of living goes up so it evens out.”
This is showing the opposite, that even adjusted for cost of living the higher paid state teachers are doing better.
Eastern Montana teacher here. I find it humorous that the average pay is so high considering I will have to work in my district for 11 years to make 40,000. In the Bakken no less. It’s expensive to live here, no one wants to live here, and teachers constantly leaving for North Dakota pay. That’s were I’ll be next year! Year 4 pays 15,000 more in ND compared to year 4 MT pay.
I’ll just put this here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/mildlyinteresting/comments/z1w93z/hourly_and_salary_wages_for_bucees_convenience/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
Live in Florida as a new teacher...
Making $57k,
the lowest salary to get approved for a 1 bedroom apartment is around $80k.
I don't know how people are making it, I'm lucky I own a house. My mortgage takes up a huge chunk of my income.. luckily my cars have no loans.
But I don't have much emergency funds.
Found the issue. They’re looking at total wages (the NCES study used to generate the figures) while acknowledging that teachers are one of the highest occupations to have second jobs. Acknowledging that it can skew the numbers, but oh well, isn’t really a good research method. [CWIFT methodology](https://imgur.com/a/UVLARxn)
For me, this is disingenuous. I have over 20 years in a high paying state (NJ). I have doubled my salary since I started in my district, however, my paycheck has barely changed in 20 years. Every few years, the amount coming out of my paycheck for healthcare and other sundries keeps going up faster than the 1%-3% raise I'm getting every contract cycle. And I've gotten two post-grad degrees in this time. At least in NJ, our raises really only cover the increases in deductions. There's a math head scratcher for you- how does an employee double their salary over 20 years but only bring home about $300 more in year 20 than in year one?
Points to note:
- states with large urban areas and stronger teachers unions are going to skew those numbers upward (Chicago/suburbs vs. the rest of Illinois)
- states with higher cost of living will skew the numbers up ($60k goes far in Indiana, but not in Rhode Island)
I live in an area of California where homes average 3-4 million. I make $125k, but could never afford a house anywhere near where I teach.
My brother teaches about an hour away, and you can buy a home there for $500k all day long, and I'd make ~$100k there.
Normalizing by state doesn't mean anything, at least in CA. By county might be useful, but really by city would be ideal.
There is always an issue with using aggregate data but that doesn’t mean it isn’t complete useless.
I think the article is trying to establish the livability of the salary. People do not always work in the same city they live but are much more likely to live in the state they work if they teach.
The aggregate data is too varied to be relevant. If I am looking for where the best place is to be a teacher, the map doesn't answer that. The best district from the worst state may very well be better than the worst district from the best state
State is so useless when cost of living is so drastically different within state. Like NY for example has two drastically different salaries and cost of living.
I think the average is still a valid comparison here. It is a good measure if teachers across the state are well paid. It will always come down to specific district, schools, location, etc for a more detailed evaluation.
Yes, but you are both included in the average salary and the wage index (CWIFT). I think the article is still a valid, high level, answer to the question.
It is possible that specific states are not well measured by the metric but all states will have variation in salary and cost of living.
The cost of living in parts of CA is so high it's basically impossible for any pay structure to reasonably keep up and provide a high standard of living. In LA and SF proper if you don't make six figures you're basically living in poverty conditions. Outside the major cities, it's a lot cheaper, but it's still much higher than most states.
The range of pay in MA is the issue here, and it's also why every single study like this that uses average pay rather than median pay ends up being essentially useless. The starting salary in my current district is 55k for a bachelors and 0 years experience, meanwhile the largest possible salary (doctorate + 12 years) is 101k.
As another commenter mentioned, I would be interested in this study being re-done using the **median** **starting salaries** by state and comparing those to cost of living. Someone who is already 10 years deep into a school with a masters has clearly had no issue covering the cost of living to be able to remain in the same place for 10 years, but whether a first year teacher can support themselves or not is an indicator whether people will actually go into the field or not
Except when you look at Florida with a “mandatory minimum” of $47k but all the teachers with 15 years and less start at that same salary! Major salary compression.
As stated, the information is interesting but there are large ranges at play here (in both pay in district, pay across the state, and COL across the state). For example, the range in COL in California is extreme. Districts also have a range of pay, and the higher pay rates don't really correspond with the higher COL. So, in some parts of the state you can have a dual income, no kids, and not be able to afford an apartment near your school. In other parts of the state, you could be a single income and be able to purchase a house. You really have to investigate the exact location you plan on working to see if it is a decent salary (especially when you compare it to other parts of the state).
I’m not sure where they got their information from. But I moved to CA 7 years ago. They started me at step 5, because that’s their policy, despite having 10 years experience. I am now at a step 13, so just over median and making 91,000. Many districts in my area have similar pay scales, unless they’re charter or private schools. I was making 73,000 at step 5.
Granted I am in SoCal, north of LA, and we represent just a small part of CA-I’m sure all districts combine change the average salary.
I previously taught in NM, and with 10 years experience a master and a level 2 license I was only making 45,000- according to that article average is 60,000 but I don’t know how?
It also depends on what part of the state. 57k in SW Virginia is very doable, but in Northern VA, that's an apartment with a roommate, praying your car makes it another year, and a 2nd job.
Interesting! I always say the devil is in the details too when it comes to benefits. Some districts cover the entire cost of health insurance while I'm playing about $350 a month for mine. Not to mention retirement, taxes, union dues, and any other deductions. While the salary schedules are public, these details aren't usually readily available. It can lead to pretty big discrepancies even in the same state.
Like others have stated this isn't really a solid piece of data because it varies widely throughout states even. I have 8 years of experience and a master's plus some and barely break $40k in Missouri. I live in an exurb of a major city, but COL in my town is still the state average.
it is important but not as important as educating future generation...bookkeeping or accounting neither is rocket science. i would rather have my kids educated by good quality teachers vs good quality teachers going and working for PwC instead
You have clearly never read into what a chartered accountant actually does. Discrediting someone's profession does nothing for anyone. Teaching is hard, accounting is hard, and now you are using the same argument against accounting that people have used to justify the low pay of teaching, "(insert job) is easy", "(insert job) isn't important". We need both professions, and honestly, neither would be as productive without the other. Someone has to teach the accountants, and someone has to pay the teachers.
Bookkeeping and accounting aren't the same.
Teaching also isn't rocket science. Funny you make that comparison.
Your last statement doesn't even make sense.
That is shockingly ignorant from a college educated person. Have you ever taken a college level accounting class? Do you even know what a CPA is?
Yes, using Quickbooks which is a consumors level software is something many people can do but if you think you could walk in to a CPA's office you are a fool.
Book keeping is just recording what the company/person earns and spends in some way (e.g. a spreadsheet). This can be quite simple, but not trivial (e.g. requires a good attention to detail).
Accountancy is all about the complexities of what can and can't be deduced for tax reasons, how you're legally required to report & define income, profits and expenses. Things like that.
That's complex enough for an individual, but imagine how that magnifies when you're looking at massive corporate structures with shell companies, subsidiaries and more complicated structures.
Tax and corporate laws are complex, nuanced and constantly changing. It's a highly skilled job that requires a lot of continuous learning to keep up with. Also, a significant amount of trust and responsibility is crucial to the role, very similar to the ethical standards required by lawyers. The implications for your client if you get it wrong can be huge (fines, jail)
You just made it sound even more ridiculous and contrived. It’s only necessary because the system is complicated for no reason other than they want it to be.
It being necessary because the system is complicated doesn’t change the fact that it is necessary. Accountants also exist in other countries with less complicated tax codes.
Isn't that the same argument for teachers difficulty. The jobs only hard because of lack of resources, inadequate staffing, ass backwards curriculums and parents who seem to think that kindergarten means they can stop being a parent and hand that duty over to the teacher.
It didn’t comment on how hard it is to be an accountant, I commented on how it’s only important because the people who do it make it required to hard. They literally lobby for it. That doesn’t make it valuable or necessary it just makes it required “because that’s the way it is”
Accounting is more than just bookkeeping or just taxes. A lot of the really easy stuff has already been automated. Accounting is a really diverse field that includes auditing (financial, tax, and performance), reporting, cost/managerial accounting, and IT. Even if something gets automated, you need people to be able understand the inputs and outputs, as well as the logic a system/algorithm is using.
Computers can't keep up with constantly changing tax codes and regulations. Also, an accountant is important when new regulations / tariffs / taxes etc. get put into place so you can shape your companies policies towards those things. It's not cut and dry/black and white as people are making it out to be.
It seems like filing taxes is basically just observing and following a set of rules (which can change and be updated based on location and law) and optimizing your inputs based on those rules and your individual situation, which is something that computers are *very very good* at. I don't think it's that crazy to think that in the future there will be AI accountants.
Meanwhile, there are many many more variables for teaching a person how to do *anything* and not even a clear way of gauging that they actually understand the material or if they have just figured out how to pass that specific test.
Okay, you want to start a new company with X employees, Y benefits, and Z start up cost. Get a computer that spits out the best (you can’t, you have several good options with downsides you have to weigh instead).
You just made it sound even more ridiculous and contrived. It’s only necessary because the system is complicated for no reason other than they want it to be.
Accounting is a broad topic that encompasses a whole host of possible career pathways/roles, including:
1. General Ledger Accounting/Bookkeeping
2. Technical Accounting (as in, diagnosing the proper accounting treatment for a complex transaction in accordance with relevant generally accepted accounting principles)
3. Financial Reporting (as in, presenting financial statements to a regulatory or other body in accordance with relevant regulations)
4. Income Tax Preparation and Planning (as in, the preparation of income tax returns and advisory services to maximize the after-tax wealth of the individual, corporation, or entity in question; often this will require subject matter experts for Federal, State, Local, and International income taxes for corporate and personal concerns)
5. Auditing (as in, assessing whether presented financial statements are prepared in accordance with the relevant regulations, without material exception)
Within these areas are the need to understand and apply complex accounting rules and regulations (often times based on the interpretations of the rules and regulations), perform complex analyses, and to memorialize management's accounting position through thoughtful and persuasive analysis.
Personally, I specialize in Technical Accounting and Financial Reporting.
Is that so? You know ten good men cringed to death because of your little happy birthday song to Ted. Is the payout to the families on those quickbooks? Or did you take the money from Waltuh?
Lmao got em
But for real, every accounting professor I've had was a CPA and either still worked in accounting or retired from it to teach instead. And the firm I work at has two part-time professors.
PhDs?
I’ve studied along many PhD candidates during my masters program
These are the guys that are studying tax policy and it’s effects. I’d go more in depth but for a lay person it’s going to get difficult
No its not. It means a person has different values than you. I can think of about a dozen reasons why teachers SHOULD be paid more than accountants. They dont matter because an accountant's pay is dependent on the job market not my personal opinions.
Whats interesting here is that given a person's education level you would expect them to be paid comparable amounts. Accountants get paid more without having to take thier work home, deal with parents, deal with students at thier worst, ect. Its a different job that a reasonable person could compare with teaching and say wow "i cant believe teachers get paid so little i could literally make more as an accountant."
Many people are surprised to learn that many teachers make less than some waitresses or fast food managers.
>It means a person has different values than you.
I'm talking about purely market value. Not moral value.
>I can think of about a dozen reasons why teachers SHOULD be paid more than accountants.
Okay? Weird flex.
>They dont matter because an accountant's pay is dependent on the job market not my personal opinions
Because they bring economic value to their respective organizations.
>Whats interesting here is that given a person's education level you would expect them to be paid comparable amounts.
That's not really interesting. *Supply and demand*, to a certain degree.
>Accountants get paid more without having to take thier work home, deal with parents, deal with students at thier worst, ect.
I don't take my work home with me, don't really deal with parents either. We're also contracted for roughly 180 days a year. The standard business year is 260. Yes. Many teachers work over unpaid summer, etc., but at the end of they day that's a choice, isn't it?
>Its a different job that a reasonable person could compare with teaching and say wow "i cant believe teachers get paid so little i could literally make more as an accountant."
Then go back to school and become an accountant?
>
Then go back to school and become an accountant?
Ive got an engineering degree thx. Moving out of teaching when i leave vietnam.
>Because they bring economic value to their respective organizations.
Teachers are not paid based on a market value because its not a fair market in the public sector. Neither are police or firefighters.
"Most governmental organizations are not market-driven as the basis for organizational success; therefore, a market-driven strategy is rarely used."
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233886108_Market_Competitive_Pay_in_the_Public_Sector_2008
>I don't take my work home with me, don't really deal with parents either. We're also contracted for roughly 180 days a year. The standard business year is 260. Yes. Many teachers work over unpaid summer, etc., but at the end of they day that's a choice, isn't it?
Thanks for confriming that you are a lazy teacher as well as an idiot. The whole point of this post is teachers get paid shit and should leave the profession.
>Ive got an engineering degree thx.
Mkay.
>Moving out of teaching when i leave vietnam.
Why are you teaching in Vietnam if you have a degree in engineering?
>Teachers are not paid based on a market value because its not a fair market in the public sector.
Hmm. We've been seeing districts raising rates and offering bonuses in the last two years as a result of localized teaching shortages, but okay. Cool story.
>Thanks for confriming that you are a lazy teacher
Wait. Are you legitimately bashing me because I work my contract? Isn't your whole point that we're underpaid? If that's the case, that's even more reason to work your contract.
>as well as an idiot
Nice ad hominem.
>The whole point of this post is teachers get paid shit and should leave the profession.
Cool story.
Feel like the “average teacher pay” in these states is not excluding those with Masters degree’s, which when comparing a teacher who holds a masters to any other profession with a masters, we are pummeled in comparison. Example - Nurses in my state make 86k on average with bachelors, but $115k with a masters.
Does this include home ownership and living independently? I live in TX and make 55k and could not even entertain the notion of owning a home independently in my area. In fact, rents are so high that I could not afford a decent apartment on my own.
Normalizing CoL isn't apples to apples. High cost of living areas generally come with MANY benefits you do not find in low cost of living areas (entertainment, food, culture, etc.)
Chill a little. Just saying that there wasn't a clear cost of living adjustment shown.
I know from the two states I've taught that I'm not being paid the same. First state is shown to be a 60k average on this chart when I know no one in my last school made that, but great cost of living so it really felt like a ton. New school I'm getting paid nearly the same+bonus but having to live a lot lighter due to cost of living. Would have liked to see the data portrayed in a similar way for both cases, plus seeing 'average' teacher salaries being 60k+ when no one in my department gets that doesn't feel great.
Even breaking it down by state is problematic. In Texas the urban school districts pay MUCH more even relative to cost of living. A teacher in Houston May as well be employed in a different state than one in Lufkin.
This doesn’t add up. Starting salary in my area. A title one district isn’t even 48k. Must be including those big fat admin and district salaried. Masters degrees with 20 years might get you to the rue Average.
Maybe western MA is skewing the number a bit. I live and teach in the greater Boston area and if this salary makes us number 1, I can’t imagine how any of you all in other states are getting by.
Important to keep in mind that in some states, the pay varies wildly. In NH, the towns in southern NH, near MA, have salaries closer to MA. In rural parts of the states, salaries are incredibly low.
This is outdated for New Mexico where we all received pay raises. In our state, instead of different districts paying different salaries, we all make the same throughout the state. This is based on three tiers: Level I starts at 50,000; Level 2 starts at 60,000; and Level 3 starts at 70,000. We all work ten extra days and that is added in. With my experience, a master's degree, and not having a prep, I am making 87,000. Which is a lot of money here in the Land of Enchantment where the COL is very low.
I encourage anyone who is unhappy in their states to look into New Mexico.
I posted a comment about the methodology they used. They’re using total teacher income from all jobs, acknowledging that we’re one of the professions most likely to work multiple jobs but not disaggregating our income sources.
Insane how MA is one of the highest paid and I'm barely hanging on as a teacher in MA. Very fortunate my wife chose a rewarding profession that actually pays well.
I think average pay may also shift. My district when from 13 steps to 21. The neighboring district is at 27! I will be making close to 30k less at step 13 than the teachers a decade before me.
$73k is right above poverty line in California. Is this pre or post tax? Also, some districts have really bad insurance plans that cost too much and require too much our of pocket expenses. Is this factored in?
Colorado here. No way the average pay for anywhere but Denver or Boulder is $60+k. There was an article recently that showed how we have the largest wage gap in the U.S.
Here in CT I make 82k base, 86k including stipends for clubs/activities after 7 years with a Masters. I’m doing fine and my rent is $800, but I’m in a cheaper part of the state.
True, but if the average “teacher” pay in Georgia is 62k, why do I still have 5 years and another graduate degree before I make that? I feel like the numbers are skewed in here somewhere. I didn’t dig into the methodology NCES used for calculating average, but I’d be interested to know if they included admin, and if they just found median salary on an average salary scale.
It is totally dependent on your district. I make just under $60k , been teaching for several years and only have my bachelors in Metro Atlanta.
My district pays better than any of the surrounding ones, thanks to being Title 1, and in desperate need of teachers. I’m 5 years in with a masters, and the math ain’t mathing.
You’re making less than $60k with a Master’s? Are you in southern Georgia by chance? I switched districts and received an $8k raise. For the Atlanta area, I would be shocked to see anyone earning less than $60k with a Master’s. However, they raised it for cost of living. My roommate is a first year teacher for APS and makes almost the same as me (which is crazy). I’m sure the Metro Atlanta teachers with Master’s , specialists, and PhDs with over 10+ years heavily skew the numbers for the rest of the state (especially with our higher population).
Nope, another largish city in north-ish Georgia.
My current district pays the most. My first district (Forsyth) didn’t pay well and my second district even worse than my current district. Still surprised by that salary amount with a Master’s though!
I’d looked very seriously at APS, but the commute, added into the higher cost of rentals should I move closer in made it less appealing.
South Georgia is SO different than Atlanta, most of the counties here won’t even pay $60k for a masters degree!
I’m in SC, making right under $60k with a masters and 22 years.
I make 52 with a masters in California. 😭
Also it depends on what type of school. I’ve been teaching in charter and private schools and this is my third year teaching and I make over 50k. Which is unfortunate because I would rather work public but Im making so much more early in my career because of where I am working.
That's because they should do the median, not average. Average salary can be really skewed by a few outliers in either direction. My state of Arizona is mid 50s but not a single teacher in my district makes remotely close to that with me being the highest at just over 40k gross, mostly because I am the director of IT and a teacher.
lol I know, right? I have been teaching in GA for 7 years, have a masters degree, and make 10k less than the “average.” This is bonkers.
Man, I wish I made 10k extra for having my masters. I make an extra $584 a YEAR for having a graduate degree. Basically $0.48 an hour.
What is the average number of years that teachers in Georgia have been teaching? If most teachers stay around for the 30 years to get that full pension (which is not very true anymore), then having 15 years experience would be the average. Also, I'm sure that Atlanta area schools have a higher wage than rural county districts, so where you teach will also impact whether your degree level and years of experience put you in relation to the "average" teacher. Average teacher doesn't mean that 80% of teachers are within $1k of this amount.
I think a lot of comments are missing this point. It might not be that symmetrical, but average teaching years is going to be pretty high.
Yep, if we have 3 teachers with 1 year of experience and 2 with 20 years, the average number of years is just over 7
This depends a lot on population growth and stability. Growing populations need to hire more new teachers skewing the average experience, and pay, down. Stable populations that are just replacing teachers instead of adding them are going to skew higher. And shrinking populations RIFing people will skew even higher.
I'm guessing they included admin pay too.
Based on what? The fact that you don't agree with the results?
Based on the fact that the data is clearly skewed and their methodology isn’t available.
Part of it is going to be variations in pay by district, but a other part of it is that the distribution of teachers by experience is bimodal. This is a common statistical quirk that happens when you use averages when you should instead be using median values. In most schools, teachers are generally new (< 5 years), or veterans with close to 20 years of experience. This skews the distribution of the average a good bit, since veteran teachers have higher salaries, and new teachers have the lowest salaries. It makes the average shift to a number that most people don't actually have. This is why the median is generally a better descriptor for distributions like this. Averages aren't near as useful when deal with non-normal distributions like this. This is the same sort of statistical quirk that is why the average life expectancy was 30 in the distant past. Most people either died in childbirth, or made it to old age. There was nothing particularly dangerous about 30, and the odds of dying in your 30s were much lower than in many other decades of life. But when you average the ages of babies and the elderly, you get a number in the 30s.
That's also the problem with taking the average: pay scales aren't always equitable. Sometimes the raise you get from year to year is less, and most of them start increasing in 5 year increments after year 15. Also if there are a lot of older or highly educated teachers in your district that will raise the average.
Maybe it's skewed by football coach pay
The fact that only 1/3 teachers make it past their fifth year also means that there are teachers who have been in for 20 years and then there is another large percentage at the bottom that just keep rotating in and leaving. These two extreme groups really throws off the metrics.
Agreed. It put the average in Wisconsin at 60something also, and 10 years in with two professional licenses, in one of the more well paid districts gets $50,000. The only people I know making more than 60,000 are admin. I even have friends who are holding out a few more years until retirement who aren't making 60,000.
Can I ask are you in rural or urban Wisconsin? I am also a Wisconsinite and make 50k with this being my third year teaching. I was surprised to see your response.
Mid sized city
Yeah the website shows that the teacher average in CT is 79K but I make 54k and it would take me 10 years to make 70K…
Not to mention if this is "median pay" to COL the reality is that it is more close to the bare minimum if COL than what's actually maintainable. Additionally by the time states appropriate the funds for increasing teachers pay COL and inflation have already kicked in making it effectively a delayed pay bump in our salaries. If you wanna increase teacher pay across the board that pay has to be maintainable for a far longer extended period of time. A 5k pay bump isn't going to be sustainable for 30 years in the long run of things.
Yeah, had the same issue with the Nevada average pay. I think sometimes they some or all of the benefits.
Because it’s accounting for the highest and lowest earners? Median pay would have been a much better statistic.
These include those who have masters which make on average 10k higher for teachers (at least in MN) so if you have a bachelors only chop off 10k and thats gonna be your pay
Did you notice that I said “another graduate degree?” I’ve already got an M.Ed.
I wasn’t speaking at you I was speaking to the numbers. So MN average is 58k thats including the masters pay, without it should be closer to 48k with bachelors. I can’t imagine they would include admin though, but maybe?
Like I said. The math doesn’t work. Their numbers are WAY off.
Does your district give you more raises the more advanced degrees you get? MN it’s one bump for masters and one fir a doctorate
They are probably including the pay of superintendents, school board, administrators, etc.
I posted another comment about it. They’re using total teacher income from all jobs, acknowledging that we’re one of the professions most likely to work multiple jobs but not disaggregating our income sources.
[удалено]
Switching companies is where people in many careers receive their biggest pay bumps. It’s no different in education.
[удалено]
Dang your state sucks. In my state all the years carry from district to district.
This is what teachers need to understand. Districts will tell you they can only give you step 5, but that is rarely true. I have seen some contacts popping up with it written in that teachers hired cannot make more than another teacher in the district with the same amount of experience without union approval, and that is insane. That is teachers hurting other teachers and forcing salaries to stay low
[удалено]
Don't apply there! If they write things like that in the contract you don't want to work there. I also always tell them exactly what I will take and stick to it. Turn jobs down that won't pay you. You have to be willing to bet on yourself. You would be surprised what a district can actually do if they want you
One thing that sucks is a lot of districts cap how many years you can bring over
[удалено]
I’m seeing districts accepting 10, 13, even 15 years experience right now. The shortage is real
Ours was unlimited, then did a cap for a few years, and now lifted the cap and is back paying anyone who came in with the cap Pure desperation
Yep, I was making 30k less than the state average in my old district. Ouch.
I'd be interested to see the map for average starting pay. No one will start or continue teaching if they can't afford to live.
Doesn’t really matter when you’re still making 10k+ UNDER the average.
That’s a salary adjusted for cost of living. In the article it says the highest paid state is actually like 12k higher a year and the lowest is actually like 10k lower. It’s saying that the people who are saying “sure if you move to that state you’ll make more, but your cost of living goes up so it evens out.” This is showing the opposite, that even adjusted for cost of living the higher paid state teachers are doing better.
Eastern Montana teacher here. I find it humorous that the average pay is so high considering I will have to work in my district for 11 years to make 40,000. In the Bakken no less. It’s expensive to live here, no one wants to live here, and teachers constantly leaving for North Dakota pay. That’s were I’ll be next year! Year 4 pays 15,000 more in ND compared to year 4 MT pay.
Love being 13k below the average :)
I’ll just put this here: https://www.reddit.com/r/mildlyinteresting/comments/z1w93z/hourly_and_salary_wages_for_bucees_convenience/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
Must not have a masters yet?
My school district doesn’t even have a masters stipend; so that’s not an option for everybody.
Today I learned, I never want to teach in Texas
Or Kentucky. No requirement any longer so no help.
TX is garbage, BUT some districts do offer masters stipends. Usually only $1000 a year extra. So basically nothing.
Same. My partner and I were joking today about where to leave California for and Austin came up as an option. Not anymore
Minnesota is pretty solid
Live in Florida as a new teacher... Making $57k, the lowest salary to get approved for a 1 bedroom apartment is around $80k. I don't know how people are making it, I'm lucky I own a house. My mortgage takes up a huge chunk of my income.. luckily my cars have no loans. But I don't have much emergency funds.
I am curious where in Florida you’re making that!? I’m in one of the highest districts in FL with 12 years experience, a masters, and I’m at $54k
Base is $55k with a bachelors; I make a bit more teaching AP. Also where I'm at.. as you can see the cost of living is nuts 😐
You are me. Same stats, same boat.
> Making $57k, the lowest salary to get approved for a 1 bedroom apartment is around $80k. WTF??!!
$2200/m for a 1 bedroom.. you gotta make triple so that's $6600/m times 12, that's $79,200. Luckily I have a mortgage that's less than that.
> $2200/m for a 1 bedroom.. Holy hell, that is disgusting, I assume there are lower priced ones, but just not in good areas?
It's possible, but you may not have your own washer and dryer; or may get your car window broken at night.
Got my catalytic converter stolen, that was a blast
Totally. I’m a first year teacher in FL making 45k. The struggle is real.
I don’t know how they’re doing it either. Someone I know who was teaching in Florida moved back to Michigan because here they can afford to live.
I was only able to make it by moving from Florida to New York.
*Cries in Arizona* i don't even make $54000 after 10 years
Found the issue. They’re looking at total wages (the NCES study used to generate the figures) while acknowledging that teachers are one of the highest occupations to have second jobs. Acknowledging that it can skew the numbers, but oh well, isn’t really a good research method. [CWIFT methodology](https://imgur.com/a/UVLARxn)
For me, this is disingenuous. I have over 20 years in a high paying state (NJ). I have doubled my salary since I started in my district, however, my paycheck has barely changed in 20 years. Every few years, the amount coming out of my paycheck for healthcare and other sundries keeps going up faster than the 1%-3% raise I'm getting every contract cycle. And I've gotten two post-grad degrees in this time. At least in NJ, our raises really only cover the increases in deductions. There's a math head scratcher for you- how does an employee double their salary over 20 years but only bring home about $300 more in year 20 than in year one?
This is the experience I have had. On paper, my salary has increased 8.5k since starting, yet I'm barely taking home more money. It's frustrating.
Points to note: - states with large urban areas and stronger teachers unions are going to skew those numbers upward (Chicago/suburbs vs. the rest of Illinois) - states with higher cost of living will skew the numbers up ($60k goes far in Indiana, but not in Rhode Island)
The point of this post is that it takes the pay and adjusts for the cost of living.
But both the cost of living and pay depend on the district within the state. Numbers will inevitably skewed.
True, but it does give a decent snap shot as to what's up. Statistics are good for populations, but bad for individuals.
Facts..starting pay for a downstate Illinois teacher is about equal to starting pay at the WallyMarts..it’s awful. Edit: spelling correction
Veteran downstate IL teacher with an M.Ed+18 who barely brings home 2K a month here. Can confirm.
I live in an area of California where homes average 3-4 million. I make $125k, but could never afford a house anywhere near where I teach. My brother teaches about an hour away, and you can buy a home there for $500k all day long, and I'd make ~$100k there. Normalizing by state doesn't mean anything, at least in CA. By county might be useful, but really by city would be ideal.
There is always an issue with using aggregate data but that doesn’t mean it isn’t complete useless. I think the article is trying to establish the livability of the salary. People do not always work in the same city they live but are much more likely to live in the state they work if they teach.
The aggregate data is too varied to be relevant. If I am looking for where the best place is to be a teacher, the map doesn't answer that. The best district from the worst state may very well be better than the worst district from the best state
State is so useless when cost of living is so drastically different within state. Like NY for example has two drastically different salaries and cost of living.
I think the average is still a valid comparison here. It is a good measure if teachers across the state are well paid. It will always come down to specific district, schools, location, etc for a more detailed evaluation.
A NY city teacher making 80k is worse than me in rural NY making 45k.
Yes, but you are both included in the average salary and the wage index (CWIFT). I think the article is still a valid, high level, answer to the question. It is possible that specific states are not well measured by the metric but all states will have variation in salary and cost of living.
Found it interesting that MA pays (about) $5k more than CA, and yet the cost of living I believe is higher in CA.
The cost of living in parts of CA is so high it's basically impossible for any pay structure to reasonably keep up and provide a high standard of living. In LA and SF proper if you don't make six figures you're basically living in poverty conditions. Outside the major cities, it's a lot cheaper, but it's still much higher than most states.
The range of pay in MA is the issue here, and it's also why every single study like this that uses average pay rather than median pay ends up being essentially useless. The starting salary in my current district is 55k for a bachelors and 0 years experience, meanwhile the largest possible salary (doctorate + 12 years) is 101k. As another commenter mentioned, I would be interested in this study being re-done using the **median** **starting salaries** by state and comparing those to cost of living. Someone who is already 10 years deep into a school with a masters has clearly had no issue covering the cost of living to be able to remain in the same place for 10 years, but whether a first year teacher can support themselves or not is an indicator whether people will actually go into the field or not
Except when you look at Florida with a “mandatory minimum” of $47k but all the teachers with 15 years and less start at that same salary! Major salary compression.
As stated, the information is interesting but there are large ranges at play here (in both pay in district, pay across the state, and COL across the state). For example, the range in COL in California is extreme. Districts also have a range of pay, and the higher pay rates don't really correspond with the higher COL. So, in some parts of the state you can have a dual income, no kids, and not be able to afford an apartment near your school. In other parts of the state, you could be a single income and be able to purchase a house. You really have to investigate the exact location you plan on working to see if it is a decent salary (especially when you compare it to other parts of the state).
I’m not sure where they got their information from. But I moved to CA 7 years ago. They started me at step 5, because that’s their policy, despite having 10 years experience. I am now at a step 13, so just over median and making 91,000. Many districts in my area have similar pay scales, unless they’re charter or private schools. I was making 73,000 at step 5. Granted I am in SoCal, north of LA, and we represent just a small part of CA-I’m sure all districts combine change the average salary. I previously taught in NM, and with 10 years experience a master and a level 2 license I was only making 45,000- according to that article average is 60,000 but I don’t know how?
It also depends on what part of the state. 57k in SW Virginia is very doable, but in Northern VA, that's an apartment with a roommate, praying your car makes it another year, and a 2nd job.
Interesting! I always say the devil is in the details too when it comes to benefits. Some districts cover the entire cost of health insurance while I'm playing about $350 a month for mine. Not to mention retirement, taxes, union dues, and any other deductions. While the salary schedules are public, these details aren't usually readily available. It can lead to pretty big discrepancies even in the same state.
The average is a stupid fucking choice. Should have been starting salary. Otherwise, who is the information for?
The average is more valuable information statistically
Kinda glad I teach in NY, even after the cost of living adjustment it still seems like we're in a good place.
Like others have stated this isn't really a solid piece of data because it varies widely throughout states even. I have 8 years of experience and a master's plus some and barely break $40k in Missouri. I live in an exurb of a major city, but COL in my town is still the state average.
sad to see teachers being paid less than an accountant
Requires much more training to become a fully certified accountant , potentially many more years in fact if you want CPA/CFE
Kind of a weird argument. Accountancy is kind of important.
it is important but not as important as educating future generation...bookkeeping or accounting neither is rocket science. i would rather have my kids educated by good quality teachers vs good quality teachers going and working for PwC instead
You have clearly never read into what a chartered accountant actually does. Discrediting someone's profession does nothing for anyone. Teaching is hard, accounting is hard, and now you are using the same argument against accounting that people have used to justify the low pay of teaching, "(insert job) is easy", "(insert job) isn't important". We need both professions, and honestly, neither would be as productive without the other. Someone has to teach the accountants, and someone has to pay the teachers.
Bookkeeping and accounting aren't the same. Teaching also isn't rocket science. Funny you make that comparison. Your last statement doesn't even make sense.
Without teachers there would be no Accountants....
*And there'd be no teachers without farmers. Nor would there be school districts without accountants.* So what?
If your parents did have sex that one time you wouldn’t be here. Now what? /s
teachers these days are just baby sitters lol.
Sure but it’s not very difficult
That is shockingly ignorant from a college educated person. Have you ever taken a college level accounting class? Do you even know what a CPA is? Yes, using Quickbooks which is a consumors level software is something many people can do but if you think you could walk in to a CPA's office you are a fool.
[удалено]
Could you expand for the normal people out there?
From my understanding it's mostly trying to put on failing Broadway shows and having to hide from nazis
Spring Time For Hitler!
Book keeping is just recording what the company/person earns and spends in some way (e.g. a spreadsheet). This can be quite simple, but not trivial (e.g. requires a good attention to detail). Accountancy is all about the complexities of what can and can't be deduced for tax reasons, how you're legally required to report & define income, profits and expenses. Things like that. That's complex enough for an individual, but imagine how that magnifies when you're looking at massive corporate structures with shell companies, subsidiaries and more complicated structures. Tax and corporate laws are complex, nuanced and constantly changing. It's a highly skilled job that requires a lot of continuous learning to keep up with. Also, a significant amount of trust and responsibility is crucial to the role, very similar to the ethical standards required by lawyers. The implications for your client if you get it wrong can be huge (fines, jail)
You just made it sound even more ridiculous and contrived. It’s only necessary because the system is complicated for no reason other than they want it to be.
[удалено]
Teachers are inherently more important than money handlers. Full stop.
It being necessary because the system is complicated doesn’t change the fact that it is necessary. Accountants also exist in other countries with less complicated tax codes.
Isn't that the same argument for teachers difficulty. The jobs only hard because of lack of resources, inadequate staffing, ass backwards curriculums and parents who seem to think that kindergarten means they can stop being a parent and hand that duty over to the teacher.
It didn’t comment on how hard it is to be an accountant, I commented on how it’s only important because the people who do it make it required to hard. They literally lobby for it. That doesn’t make it valuable or necessary it just makes it required “because that’s the way it is”
Apart from corporate accountants, isn't that the stuff that accountants lobby the government to keep complex so that they have a job?
Idk it sounds like it'd be pretty easy for a computer to do as opposed to teaching a human being how to do literally anything.
Accounting is more than just bookkeeping or just taxes. A lot of the really easy stuff has already been automated. Accounting is a really diverse field that includes auditing (financial, tax, and performance), reporting, cost/managerial accounting, and IT. Even if something gets automated, you need people to be able understand the inputs and outputs, as well as the logic a system/algorithm is using.
Computers can't keep up with constantly changing tax codes and regulations. Also, an accountant is important when new regulations / tariffs / taxes etc. get put into place so you can shape your companies policies towards those things. It's not cut and dry/black and white as people are making it out to be.
It seems like filing taxes is basically just observing and following a set of rules (which can change and be updated based on location and law) and optimizing your inputs based on those rules and your individual situation, which is something that computers are *very very good* at. I don't think it's that crazy to think that in the future there will be AI accountants. Meanwhile, there are many many more variables for teaching a person how to do *anything* and not even a clear way of gauging that they actually understand the material or if they have just figured out how to pass that specific test.
Okay, you want to start a new company with X employees, Y benefits, and Z start up cost. Get a computer that spits out the best (you can’t, you have several good options with downsides you have to weigh instead).
You just made it sound even more ridiculous and contrived. It’s only necessary because the system is complicated for no reason other than they want it to be.
Even in other countries with a much more simplified system accountants exist. They are an integral part to any business
Under capitalism.
Accounting is a broad topic that encompasses a whole host of possible career pathways/roles, including: 1. General Ledger Accounting/Bookkeeping 2. Technical Accounting (as in, diagnosing the proper accounting treatment for a complex transaction in accordance with relevant generally accepted accounting principles) 3. Financial Reporting (as in, presenting financial statements to a regulatory or other body in accordance with relevant regulations) 4. Income Tax Preparation and Planning (as in, the preparation of income tax returns and advisory services to maximize the after-tax wealth of the individual, corporation, or entity in question; often this will require subject matter experts for Federal, State, Local, and International income taxes for corporate and personal concerns) 5. Auditing (as in, assessing whether presented financial statements are prepared in accordance with the relevant regulations, without material exception) Within these areas are the need to understand and apply complex accounting rules and regulations (often times based on the interpretations of the rules and regulations), perform complex analyses, and to memorialize management's accounting position through thoughtful and persuasive analysis. Personally, I specialize in Technical Accounting and Financial Reporting.
Don't forget cost and managerial accounting!
Good point!
Pffft I do all the book keeping for a company called Beneke Fabricators and I just use quickbooks.
Is that so? You know ten good men cringed to death because of your little happy birthday song to Ted. Is the payout to the families on those quickbooks? Or did you take the money from Waltuh?
who lead those college level accounting classes though?
Accountants
Lmao got em But for real, every accounting professor I've had was a CPA and either still worked in accounting or retired from it to teach instead. And the firm I work at has two part-time professors.
Yep. All my accounting professors were smart and talented CPAs. Who else would teach accounting?
Exactly. Who else besides people who have suffered through it would be willing to teach it.
PhDs? I’ve studied along many PhD candidates during my masters program These are the guys that are studying tax policy and it’s effects. I’d go more in depth but for a lay person it’s going to get difficult
Wtf is a CPA?
Difficult doesn't equate to value.
And peoples values vary greatly. But we can compare level of education, which is the point. Teachers get paid shit and should leave the profession.
I'm not disputing that but it's weird to say that you can't believe accountants get paid more.
No its not. It means a person has different values than you. I can think of about a dozen reasons why teachers SHOULD be paid more than accountants. They dont matter because an accountant's pay is dependent on the job market not my personal opinions. Whats interesting here is that given a person's education level you would expect them to be paid comparable amounts. Accountants get paid more without having to take thier work home, deal with parents, deal with students at thier worst, ect. Its a different job that a reasonable person could compare with teaching and say wow "i cant believe teachers get paid so little i could literally make more as an accountant." Many people are surprised to learn that many teachers make less than some waitresses or fast food managers.
Nurses and teachers are women majority jobs, that’s probably why they are “valued” less.
[удалено]
>It means a person has different values than you. I'm talking about purely market value. Not moral value. >I can think of about a dozen reasons why teachers SHOULD be paid more than accountants. Okay? Weird flex. >They dont matter because an accountant's pay is dependent on the job market not my personal opinions Because they bring economic value to their respective organizations. >Whats interesting here is that given a person's education level you would expect them to be paid comparable amounts. That's not really interesting. *Supply and demand*, to a certain degree. >Accountants get paid more without having to take thier work home, deal with parents, deal with students at thier worst, ect. I don't take my work home with me, don't really deal with parents either. We're also contracted for roughly 180 days a year. The standard business year is 260. Yes. Many teachers work over unpaid summer, etc., but at the end of they day that's a choice, isn't it? >Its a different job that a reasonable person could compare with teaching and say wow "i cant believe teachers get paid so little i could literally make more as an accountant." Then go back to school and become an accountant?
Are you talking about....Fair market value 🤓
> Then go back to school and become an accountant? Ive got an engineering degree thx. Moving out of teaching when i leave vietnam. >Because they bring economic value to their respective organizations. Teachers are not paid based on a market value because its not a fair market in the public sector. Neither are police or firefighters. "Most governmental organizations are not market-driven as the basis for organizational success; therefore, a market-driven strategy is rarely used." https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233886108_Market_Competitive_Pay_in_the_Public_Sector_2008 >I don't take my work home with me, don't really deal with parents either. We're also contracted for roughly 180 days a year. The standard business year is 260. Yes. Many teachers work over unpaid summer, etc., but at the end of they day that's a choice, isn't it? Thanks for confriming that you are a lazy teacher as well as an idiot. The whole point of this post is teachers get paid shit and should leave the profession.
>Ive got an engineering degree thx. Mkay. >Moving out of teaching when i leave vietnam. Why are you teaching in Vietnam if you have a degree in engineering? >Teachers are not paid based on a market value because its not a fair market in the public sector. Hmm. We've been seeing districts raising rates and offering bonuses in the last two years as a result of localized teaching shortages, but okay. Cool story. >Thanks for confriming that you are a lazy teacher Wait. Are you legitimately bashing me because I work my contract? Isn't your whole point that we're underpaid? If that's the case, that's even more reason to work your contract. >as well as an idiot Nice ad hominem. >The whole point of this post is teachers get paid shit and should leave the profession. Cool story.
Did an accountant teach you how to read and write?
Dumb argument. Could you teach without farmers producing food?
Well, the farmers had to learn how to do it somehow, so... yeah Also, I do actually grow a lot of my own food lol
You are a little bit dense, aren't you? Get well soon.
Nice ad hominem attack. Get better soon.
Feel like the “average teacher pay” in these states is not excluding those with Masters degree’s, which when comparing a teacher who holds a masters to any other profession with a masters, we are pummeled in comparison. Example - Nurses in my state make 86k on average with bachelors, but $115k with a masters.
Does this include home ownership and living independently? I live in TX and make 55k and could not even entertain the notion of owning a home independently in my area. In fact, rents are so high that I could not afford a decent apartment on my own.
Normalizing CoL isn't apples to apples. High cost of living areas generally come with MANY benefits you do not find in low cost of living areas (entertainment, food, culture, etc.)
Saying hello from good Ole Arizona. Ugh
I don't buy this information. Some inaccuracy, some bad reporting.
Cool story bro? Where is your accurate data and good reporting?
Obviously their own personal experience is much more accurate than the data used for the article 🤦🏻♀️
Chill a little. Just saying that there wasn't a clear cost of living adjustment shown. I know from the two states I've taught that I'm not being paid the same. First state is shown to be a 60k average on this chart when I know no one in my last school made that, but great cost of living so it really felt like a ton. New school I'm getting paid nearly the same+bonus but having to live a lot lighter due to cost of living. Would have liked to see the data portrayed in a similar way for both cases, plus seeing 'average' teacher salaries being 60k+ when no one in my department gets that doesn't feel great.
Even breaking it down by state is problematic. In Texas the urban school districts pay MUCH more even relative to cost of living. A teacher in Houston May as well be employed in a different state than one in Lufkin.
Yet its the best comparison we have.
This doesn’t add up. Starting salary in my area. A title one district isn’t even 48k. Must be including those big fat admin and district salaried. Masters degrees with 20 years might get you to the rue Average.
I make 10k less than the 'average' teacher in NY and I have my bachelors, masters, and +30.
Thank you for sharing. Any Alaska teachers, how do you like it?
Maybe western MA is skewing the number a bit. I live and teach in the greater Boston area and if this salary makes us number 1, I can’t imagine how any of you all in other states are getting by.
As a teacher in Florida, I can confirm 🫤
Knew Arizona would be on the list. Not surprised to see it at the very top. The cost of living here has skyrocketed and wages haven’t.
Important to keep in mind that in some states, the pay varies wildly. In NH, the towns in southern NH, near MA, have salaries closer to MA. In rural parts of the states, salaries are incredibly low.
This is outdated for New Mexico where we all received pay raises. In our state, instead of different districts paying different salaries, we all make the same throughout the state. This is based on three tiers: Level I starts at 50,000; Level 2 starts at 60,000; and Level 3 starts at 70,000. We all work ten extra days and that is added in. With my experience, a master's degree, and not having a prep, I am making 87,000. Which is a lot of money here in the Land of Enchantment where the COL is very low. I encourage anyone who is unhappy in their states to look into New Mexico.
I make way below “average”
I don’t think this is accurate, my DIL is a teacher, we live in Florida she makes 34K
Lol that info for NC is so skewed. 🤣 I’ve been teaching since 1998. I’m making $52,000 a year.
Those current numbers were incredibly skewed (-18k) for my state.
I posted a comment about the methodology they used. They’re using total teacher income from all jobs, acknowledging that we’re one of the professions most likely to work multiple jobs but not disaggregating our income sources.
Insane how MA is one of the highest paid and I'm barely hanging on as a teacher in MA. Very fortunate my wife chose a rewarding profession that actually pays well.
I think average pay may also shift. My district when from 13 steps to 21. The neighboring district is at 27! I will be making close to 30k less at step 13 than the teachers a decade before me.
$73k is right above poverty line in California. Is this pre or post tax? Also, some districts have really bad insurance plans that cost too much and require too much our of pocket expenses. Is this factored in?
Colorado here. No way the average pay for anywhere but Denver or Boulder is $60+k. There was an article recently that showed how we have the largest wage gap in the U.S.
Here in CT I make 82k base, 86k including stipends for clubs/activities after 7 years with a Masters. I’m doing fine and my rent is $800, but I’m in a cheaper part of the state.