Chris C, the only reason I havent returned to debunk your rather bad mathematoics/statistics is that it would take too long to correct your errors and I genuinely doubt that you have the ability to understand it. Applying CPI increases to a base figure is hardly rocket science and any year 9 student could do so - but you cant. You spend post after post trying to erroneously claim that teachers are underpaid while not only being totally wrong but banging a drum that is in no way relevant to the issue. Andjust to put a little perspective on your superannuation claim, do you think teachers are the only ones who had unfunded, over generous superannuation plans back in the 70s? I was in the public service one which was also incredibly generous and totally unaffordable. Do you even know why we have a Future Fund? It is to pay for the stupidity of our forefathers in promising superannuation that wasnt budgeted for.

I enjoy debating statistics and interpretation of data etc. But I prefer to do it with someone who can at least apply CPI correctly and understands the basics of comparing one generation to another and the limitations that apply.

Chris C,

I know of primary school students in a public school that have a normal teacher who also has a teacher’s assistant.

As well, the students have a number of specialised teachers including a sports teacher, a music teacher, a Japanese language teacher and a spelling teacher.

While the students are being taught by these specialised teachers, the normal teacher stands at the back of the room and does nothing.

And now there is a call for specialised maths and science teachers, because maths and science has hit rock bottom.

Of course all teachers want more money, but seldom mention that student marks have not improved in 20 years.

Paying someone according to CPI is about as archaic as paying someone according to years of service.

Most people are now paid according to their level of skills and their productivity.

You're wasting your breath asking Chris questions like this. He's been asked them in a dozen different ways, a dozen different times. He just wants to go on his rant, and ignore them (the response of others is more intentionally selective... can't answer criticisms, ignore them). He can't even explain why the amount they would be paid under his scheme is appropriate, just that using an invented formula (which he's incorrectly applied multiple times), it would be higher today... if we were aiming to keep teacher salaries the same, even though the economy has changed, the teaching market has changed, and almost everything else has changed. Chris, I for one am sick of you dodging everyone's posts in an attempt to ramble on like grampa Simpson on one of his less coherent days. We don't care about your grievances with your old school, we don't care about your political leanings, and we certainly don't care for your grammar and writing style. Either reply properly to what people have said, or take yourself off.

How about governments (both state and federal) just dump the current inequitable funding arrangements for private schools which send lots of money to schools that patently don't need it, and agree tp pay teacher salaries for all schools (public and private) - on the basis of an informed view of how many teachers are needed for particular student numbers. Private schools would only get extra funding for teachers for students with disabilities, from NESB or low socio-economic backgrounds. Public schools would also get extra funding for the same categories of students. Then if the private schools want to employ extra teachers, have another squash court etc etc they can pay for that out of their own funds.
Incidentally, one thing that people always forget to include when looking at subsidies to private schools is that the religious ones don't pay any rates to the local council areas they in (due to exemptions for religious organisations), whereas all commercial businesses that own land have to pay rates - and let's be honest, most of these schools ARE commercial businesses - if they weren't why are they putting up their fees all the time way above inflation rates?

Riddler,

You say that I have bad maths, yet fail to point out a single mathematical error (4.25:50pm, 15/2) in my calculations. The only error pointed out as of my last post was the one I pointed out myself.

You say that I have not proved a salary reduction. I did not set out to do so. My initial poin, was that teachers had had a “a relative cut” (5.15:55pm, on 6/2).

You say that I “continue to ignore” Longweekend58’s explanations of how economics is not done by comparing teacher pay to average pay. Yet I have twice responded to this point:
“The change in the economic structure of Australia does not alter the point of my argument…” (4.56:15pm, 16/2)
“You [longweekend58] have outlined changes in the structure of the Australian economy again. I told you the first time that I understood this. It does not alter my point: the relative decline in teacher pay has been accompanied by a decline in the entry scores for those training to be teachers. In other words, because teaching has become less attractive as a career compared with other careers, fewer able people opt into it. That is the issue that affects the education of children. It does not mean that the education system has suddenly become a disaster area, but it does indicate an area of concern.” (3.48:32pm, 15/2)

Longweekend has, twice at least, given an explanation for the changes in relative incomes in Australia. I have pointed out a consequence of those changes. Neither point invalidates the other.

You say that I “don’t understand causation or logic” because I draw a connection between falling relative pay for teachers and falling entry scores for teacher training. The connection is obvious. Pay is one factor that people consider when embarking on careers. It is not the only factor, and I have never said it is. You may take an $81,806 job in preference to an $82,806 job because the former has better future opportunities, a lower workload or a more satisfying fit with what you want to do in your life, etc.

As the average percentile rank of those entering teacher education fell from 74 to 61 between 1983 and 2003 and the average teacher pay for men pay fell from 108 percent to 91 percent of non-teacher pay and the average teacher pay for women fell from 114 percent to 103 percent of non-teacher pay over the same period, there is prima facie evidence of a connection. Both falls are significant. If you factor in the increase in the proportion of school-leavers who entered tertiary education between 1983 and 2003, the drop in entry scores becomes more significant. It is a percentile rank, not an absolute standard, so a 61 in 2003 is lower in actual academic standard than a 61 in 1983.

The connection is not proved beyond absolute doubt, but it would be hard to make the case that the falling relative pay of teachers has had no effect on the average ability of those who enter teacher training or on those who decide to leave teaching.

Few people argue that we might as well cut teacher pay to half that of MAOTE. It is obvious that such a move would lead to a massive exodus from teaching. It stands to reason that the more teacher pay falls relative to the pay of other occupations the fewer the able people who will want to be teachers. Given an entry score of 61 in 2003, do we sit back and let it reach 51? 41? Or do we take steps to lift it back to 74?

There is one dominant employer of teachers in each state, the education department. It knows it can allow teacher pay to fall relative to the pay of other groups and still get teachers. However, it has to consider the ability of people it gets.