Teachers are at the end of their rope.

[malcolmk14]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Do you have a source for that $48k? The Alberta Retired Teachers' Association (ARTA) says it's between 50% - 55% of your five highest earning years, not 48%. When you include CPP and OAS, you will actually get over 70% of your salary. That's 46% more annual income than you suggested, so I just want to put any teachers' minds at ease that - in fact - their pension will offer them a much more comfortable retirement than that $48k you quoted would.

Additionally, teachers receive outstanding benefits through retirement that people in the private sector obviously do not. That is a valuable package that includes medical, dental and vision care, amongst other benefits like accidental death & dismemberment, etc. Check it out in the link above...it's pretty awesome.

Do you know if you can access CPP at 55 retirement? CPP doesn't usually kick in until 65, but I know you can take it earlier if you're okay with 36% less/year in perpetuity.

Source: https://www.atrf.com/planning-your-r...d-eligibility/

All depends on your years of service. A teacher with 31 years of service and $100k salary for instance would retire with a $49.6k pension so the more service you have, the more that number creeps up toward 50-55%.

And yes, of course, a teacher would get CPP as well. Someone just asked how the pension formula works.

[malcolmk14]

Let’s take me for instance, I started teaching in 2014 at age 27 and have put in 8 years of pensionable service so far (I took a year off). For me to qualify for an unreduced pension I’ll have to teach until 2044. That’ll be 29 years of service and I’ll be 57.

In todays dollars a teacher at the top of the salary grid makes $103,000 so essentially by the formula my pension would be about $48,000 in todays dollars if I choose to retire then (47% of salary). I wouldn’t be eligible for CPP yet but I also can’t see myself subbing after I retire, when I’m done, I’m done. So for a few years between 57 and 65 I’ll have to rely on other investments because 48k a year likely won’t cut it with 23 and 20 year old kids.

[Fuzzy14]

Any teacher that has a problem with this is an idiot. The point of school is that students are learning and showing you that they have an understanding of curriculum you are teaching them. The idea that they have to show this by pre-set dates is silly. Teachers should care that the students know the material not when they know it or if they can reach arbitrary dates to know it.

You're entitled to your view on this, which I admit is shared by many coming out of the faculties of education on this point.

However, I along with many people out there including many on this board (which includes teachers AND parents), think that someone needs to be an "idiot" to believe that the ability to complete work by the assigned date is irrelevant to the preparation of a child to perform in the real world.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Derek Sutton

Likely Bruce as he was a sub. Keith was a firefighter with the city, don’t think he was a sub prior to that.

I had both Bruce and Keith as subs.

When I was in grade 11, I was in a Physics class that was super small and all guys. We had Bruce Hart as a sub one day and we just spent the entire class talking about wrestling with him.

[calgarywinning]

Originally Posted by getbak

I had both Bruce and Keith as subs.

When I was in grade 11, I was in a Physics class that was super small and all guys. We had Bruce Hart as a sub one day and we just spent the entire class talking about wrestling with him.

I had Bruce. This is funny. Probably learn more in that class then being "on topic"

[Sylvanfan]

My 8 year old is horrible at reading. Its like she knows chatgpt will be doing this for her in a couple years because she puts no effort into trying to learn. I have to do like an hour with her every day to try and help her out. If I had to do this all day with multiple kids that are not my own...I probably would off myself within 12 months. So as much as I want to think teachers are paid well.. they have to deal with kids like my daughter and pretend to enjoy it.

[Red Potato Standing By]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

My 8 year old is horrible at reading. Its like she knows chatgpt will be doing this for her in a couple years because she puts no effort into trying to learn. I have to do like an hour with her every day to try and help her out. If I had to do this all day with multiple kids that are not my own...I probably would off myself within 12 months. So as much as I want to think teachers are paid well.. they have to deal with kids like my daughter and pretend to enjoy it.

Hey man they have the same schedule as a seven year old. So it can’t be that bad.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

My 8 year old is horrible at reading. Its like she knows chatgpt will be doing this for her in a couple years because she puts no effort into trying to learn. I have to do like an hour with her every day to try and help her out. If I had to do this all day with multiple kids that are not my own...I probably would off myself within 12 months. So as much as I want to think teachers are paid well.. they have to deal with kids like my daughter and pretend to enjoy it.

Sounds like some of my coworkers abilities !

[#-3]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Sorry, why are you so angry?

Sorry, didn't really read the weekend portion of the thread, caught the one post and maybe read it wrong.

[Harry Lime]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

My 8 year old is horrible at reading. Its like she knows chatgpt will be doing this for her in a couple years because she puts no effort into trying to learn. I have to do like an hour with her every day to try and help her out. If I had to do this all day with multiple kids that are not my own...I probably would off myself within 12 months. So as much as I want to think teachers are paid well.. they have to deal with kids like my daughter and pretend to enjoy it.

You are one of the few that seem to be taking an active role in supporting the learning process for you kid, and that's becoming a rare thing. It's understated what the difficulty and required skill set to teach 40 kids simultaneously who don't want to learn, and have a positive effect. It just gets harder as a kid ages if they don't acquire skills earlier but still have to be reached by a teacher to develop the necessary requirements to pass.

I don't think that I could do it.

On top of that, teachers aren't protected by administration the same way that they once were. Parents have direct access to teachers. Can you imagine having 10 Slivers coming at you every week, day and night?

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by Swift

In retrospect, maybe I was a bit too hasty. Let's just rid ourselves of the Catholics first and then we'll see how things go from there.

The Calgary inquisition.

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by malcolmk14

Let’s take me for instance, I started teaching in 2014 at age 27 and have put in 8 years of pensionable service so far (I took a year off). For me to qualify for an unreduced pension I’ll have to teach until 2044. That’ll be 29 years of service and I’ll be 57.

In todays dollars a teacher at the top of the salary grid makes $103,000 so essentially by the formula my pension would be about $48,000 in todays dollars if I choose to retire then (47% of salary). I wouldn’t be eligible for CPP yet but I also can’t see myself subbing after I retire, when I’m done, I’m done. So for a few years between 57 and 65 I’ll have to rely on other investments because 48k a year likely won’t cut it with 23 and 20 year old kids.

No offence, but boo f*c*'n hoo, 99% of people work to at least 65 and most don't even have a work pension, if you can't sub for a few years get a stress-less job at Walmart to add to the 48k pension. and your 23 and 20 year old kids should be making their own money by then

[malcolmk14]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

No offence, but boo f*c*'n hoo, 99% of people work to at least 65 and most don't even have a work pension, if you can't sub for a few years get a stress-less job at Walmart to add to the 48k pension. and your 23 and 20 year old kids should be making their own money by then

Thank you for the input. I wasn't complaining, and am fully aware of what most people do.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

No offence, but boo f*c*'n hoo, 99% of people work to at least 65 and most don't even have a work pension, if you can't sub for a few years get a stress-less job at Walmart to add to the 48k pension. and your 23 and 20 year old kids should be making their own money by then

This is wrong people could choose to save money in a similar fashion and end up with similar results. The difference between the teachers plan and say another professional in the private sector is their employer matches 9.89% of salary. Which would be on the high end of private sector. Most jobs requiring degrees have at least 5% matching so the value of the “gold plated pension” is about 4-5k per year additional salary.

So to give you just as flippant or response if you want a teachers pension Save your own damn money.

[Spurs]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy14

You're entitled to your view on this, which I admit is shared by many coming out of the faculties of education on this point.

However, I along with many people out there including many on this board (which includes teachers AND parents), think that someone needs to be an "idiot" to believe that the ability to complete work by the assigned date is irrelevant to the preparation of a child to perform in the real world.

There are ways to go about preparing them to have the ability to complete work by the assigned date other than making every assignment have penalties or zeroes for not being handed in on time.

[Spurs]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

and tell me this isn't an extremely defensive 'play the victim-card' mentality?

Don't see any play the victim card in what he posted at all.

[Jason14h]

Come on “most” jobs don’t have a 5% matching contribution

Some do - but most don’t

And in $100k salary that’s a 10k$ difference . Even with a 5% matching it’s a $5k a year difference

That’s not irrelevant . It’s a bit disingenuous to say “we’ll just save more and you’ll have more retirement “ - obviously that’s the case for anyone , with a pension or without

But I don’t see anyone actually attacking the pension - it’s that for some weird reason when pointing out that it is a very good pension and great benefit of the job people try to marginalize it

Imagine if instead of a teachers thread this was the oil and gas thread and someone who had a great 10% employer match said “it’s not really a great benefit , if you want to retire with $50k a year you just need to save more “

The overall teacher retirement benefits are top notch . And there’s nothing wrong with that .

[Slava]

Originally Posted by GGG

This is wrong people could choose to save money in a similar fashion and end up with similar results. The difference between the teachers plan and say another professional in the private sector is their employer matches 9.89% of salary. Which would be on the high end of private sector. Most jobs requiring degrees have at least 5% matching so the value of the “gold plated pension” is about 4-5k per year additional salary.

So to give you just as flippant or response if you want a teachers pension Save your own damn money.

Well, I've seen this a few times and I'll just point out the obvious issue. For an individual to match this, they're saving 20% of their income. So yes, it's possible, but a very small percentage is going to make the sacrifices along the way necessary. It's not just 20% when times are good for them, it's 20% through thick and thin, and increasing along with their salary.

And let me say, I don't begrudge teachers (or other public servants, or anyone else) their pensions. It's the deal they've signed up for. If people think teachers have such a sweet deal, go be a teacher! It gets tiresome to hear about how easy everyone else has it, how anyone can do anyone else's job and how other people get paid too much for whatever they do.

I think we (as a society/province/municipality, etc.) have a real issue with the DB pensions though. They're not affordable. With "us" covering that longevity risk for people and those people continuing to live longer it's extremely difficult. But again, I don't begrudge individual teachers for having that deal.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Slava

I think we (as a society/province/municipality, etc.) have a real issue with the DB pensions though. They're not affordable. With "us" covering that longevity risk for people and those people continuing to live longer it's extremely difficult. But again, I don't begrudge individual teachers for having that deal.

They’re beyond ‘difficult’ - they’re untenable. Given the demographics of teachers (female, educated, healthy), a teacher starting today is expected to live to 90. The former head of the Ontario Teachers Pension Fund himself has commented that a system where members draw a pension for longer than they paid into is not viable in the long term. Especially in an aging society where the return on investment in the fund will be lower than the return in earlier high-growth decades.

The only question at this point is whether we’ll see painful but deliberate recalibrations of public pensions (some combination of paying more for longer / retiring later / receiving less), or if we’ll just ride this train to collapse and political crisis.

[Russic]

Originally Posted by Sliver

(responding to my comment on burnout)...

I hear this and I always wonder if people are saying it with a straight face of just trying to get a rise out of the rest of us who started work with two weeks off a year (it's three, now), but had to work the first 12 months before being eligible for any time off at all.

Burnout can hit anyone, but barely anybody has two months off to look forward to just a couple months after their last week off, which was just a couple months after their last two weeks off.

I've been silent in this thread as I'm not in the mood for being the poster boy for pointing out that being a teacher is a terrific career (for whatever reason teachers want us to think they have it rough, which I believe is their union trying to incite them, but whatever), but nobody should be humouring this ridiculous notion that teachers don't have absolutely outstanding holiday benefits. They run the same schedule seven-year-olds run FFS.

Just wanted to clarify my statement on burnout... burnout isn't so much a factor of how hard you work but rather how bad of a fit you find yourself in. I know people that work harder than teachers and are having an absolute blast in life.

I don't know if you've ever hung out with a tween that gives you attitude all day long, but hanging out with about 20 of them who do it every day for months at a time will wear on you. To believe that would never get aggravating is misguided imo. The time off is awesome, but it's nowhere near compensation for dealing with insufferable children with hyphenated first names all day every day.

What this thread seems to be missing is an appreciation for human variation. Phrases get tossed around like "teachers are x" without realizing there is no single entity known as "teachers." Some fit in their jobs perfectly and you never ever hear from them, and some exist in an active panic most of the time.

Generally, whenever this comes up on CP the anecdotal stories get out of control. If I were to play that game, I'd mention private-sector buddies of mine who don't get as much vacation but make twice as much and go to Vegas every other month. From my perspective, their jobs are preferable in nearly every way to teachers, but then my perspective is extremely narrow.